Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
FEMM European Parliament
Follow its sittingsAbir Al-Sahlani
Thank you, dear chairs and Coora Pottor. Speaking for New Europe and my dear colleague Giluzzi IR, who was instrumental in these negotiations, I am proud that we managed to deliver real progress for victims across the EU within this directive. We have strengthened access to justice and information, provided stronger protection, and enhanced rights for victims. But more than anything else, I want to underline the importance of including references to reproductive health care and abortion care in the text. This is the first Victim Rights Directive that explicitly mentions reproductive health care, and this is a significant step forward in addressing the rights of victims of sexual violence.
I would like to extend my gratitude personally to all the teams who are involved, for all the support that...
We have got. This was.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Salzalani. We now proceed to the vote. There's just one single vote, a roll call vote on this file, and we declare the vote open then. Oh. The boat is closed.
Closed. Sorry. 101. Yes. No.
No. No.
Can he hold it because?
Come on.
Lina Gálvez
So, we conclude here. Congratulations again. Okay. Okay. So now that the room is slightly less crowded, we move on with our meeting, just the farm committee meeting, and we go to point one, which is the adoption of the agenda. Normally, there are no comments.
We continue, but I've been informed that Margarita de la Pisa would like to intervene on this point. So, the floor is yours.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Well, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. On February 26, the commission is going to express its policy on the citizens' initiative, "My Body, My Choice." We don't know what the definitive position of the commission will be. I think the parliament calls for a budgetary issue to be brought up concerning this particular "my body, my choice." It's very important to take this into consideration for 2027 and, in view of the MFF as well, that we're having a vote on it tomorrow.
This particular group has posed this question, but unfortunately, no correction has been made on this issue. There are many in this chamber who have said that the citizens' initiative is taking place in an inner realm where the European Union has no remit or competence whatsoever, and this has been expressed by a number of member states as well. We're speaking about the financing of interests with a special agenda behind all of those apparent interests. So any reference to my voice, my choice ought to be put aside until the commission expresses itself on this particular point specifically? Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
So, thank you. Thank you very much. Just to inform you, we cannot postpone the vote because we have a deadline. This is not definitive; we are just giving an opinion. We are not the committee responsible for the budget.
So, we have a deadline that is not decided for us, so we cannot postpone it. Regarding what is included or not, it's not my decision, but it is the coordinators' political decision, so it is decided. So you can vote against it, obviously. But, well, if anyone else would like to postpone, if there are other groups, but yeah. But it is not a majority for that.
So, we continue. But, I mean, it is a coordinator's decision. So I have asked the groups that follow, and you have no majority. So this is to keep with the coordinator's decision we have. So now, I would like to know who is in favor of the adoption of the agenda.
So, please, who is in favor of the adoption of the agenda? He's against abstentions, so the agenda has been adopted. So we move to the following point, which is the chair's announcement of the decision of the fund committee coordinators in their meeting of 26 January, and the written procedure of 10 February are included in the documents of the meeting. And if there are no comments, the sessions are endorsed. We now move to the adoption of the minutes that are again included in the documents.
So, if there are no comments, the minutes are endorsed. And we move now to point six, which is the file of establishing Global Europe. And I would like to give now the floor to the rapporteur, Avir Al Salani, from Renew. You have five minutes, so the floor is yours. Thank you.
Abir Al-Sahlani
5 minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, last week, we were in India to follow up on how gender equality priorities have been implemented in the External Action Service of the EU. We saw indeed some progress, but vast inequalities remain. What stayed with me is the fact that rights written in ink and what is written in laws are not the same as rights lived in reality.
Rights that are outlined in international law and national law constitutions do not equal individual agency. There is a vast gap between the lived realities and what the laws are intending, but also what treaties, understandings between countries, and different kinds of agreements state. But with the anti-gender movements and far-right political actors clinging to power, we have a situation in many parts of the world where this gap is growing, and gender-responsive policies and laws are weakened. We are living in a severe women's rights crisis. It will negatively impact all policy areas, from peace and security to trade and economic growth.
Alarm bells should be sounding. But what also stayed with me from the journey and the mission to India was the resistance. The vibrant and brave feminist movements and organizations around the world are the actors that will bring transformative change alive. They challenge existing power imbalances and foster democracy. They put new ideas on the table.
They mediate and negotiate peace, and they are always there for the most vulnerable when no one else is. They are always the first responders to a deadly crisis. But they are fighting for their survival. Political support is shrinking, and so is the funding. We must invest in them, and it is urgent.
The trip to India came at a timely moment. It confirmed some of the issues we have constantly been raising and the pushback on women's rights, gender equality, and funding. And it has informed our priorities for the draft opinion. This is the moment for the EU to show leadership if we want to be a world-leading defender of women's rights. And if we are to put the money where our mouth is, the Global Europe Instrument is utterly crucial.
I want to thank the commission for the proposal and for including gender equality priorities. We understand that this is a priority also for the commissioner, and I hope we can work together to further strengthen the proposal. Because I believe the proposal lacks some ambition to meet the reality that many women are living through every day. To me, it remains unclear how the commission will achieve its commitments and with which funding. To maximize flexibility, all targets have been removed, including gender targets.
But we all know what happens to gender equality programs when flexibility becomes the main guiding principle. They actually disappear. The commission proposes a full mainstreaming approach, but mainstreaming only works when there are clear targets. For me, it is a core priority that the multiple, pro-multiple-pronged approach remains, with both dedicated gender programs and mainstream gender priorities in other programs. Therefore, my proposal is to reintroduce the gender targets, including one specifically for women's organizations.
And with women's organizations, we also mean women-led organizations. We have them in the DGI instrument. Removing them now sounds to me like only one signal. We are deprioritizing gender equality and women's rights. Further, I would like to see dedicated programmable actions on SRHR, women, peace and security, combating gender-based violence, and economic empowerment and participation.
I look forward to receiving further input from the shadow rapporteurs, and I wish we can have a constructive process. I hope FAM can send a strong signal for the need for a truly gender-responsive and transformative global Europe financial instrument because words without funding mean inaction. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
So, thank you. Thank you very much. And yes, indeed, we just came back from a very timely, important mission in India that we will soon report to the rest of our colleagues. And I would like to give the floor for two and a half minutes to the shareholder rapporteur. So I start, my missus Lukashenka, please, the floor is yours.
Eleonora Meleti
I think that Elizabeth would be easier for everybody. Thank you, Chel. Thank you for instrumental global Europe. Yes.
Now, at this moment, it's a very crucial moment for European foreign policy. We have instability. We have aggressive policies from Russia. China is more present, and we have to react quickly and efficiently. This instrument should guarantee efficiency and quick reaction.
And we need an instrument that truly supports our partnerships, that really stabilizes our neighborhoods and can support this and our principles. We can't accept a situation where we are not respecting European values. We're talking about health. We're talking about labor markets, etc. These are very insignificant matters, also for our foreign policy. These are really the conditions for stabilizing the neighborhood.
And I think this is where we have this kind of stability; there's less risk of war and violence. So, we need to have a pragmatic approach. We have to really strengthen the resilience of our partner states and focus on stability. Stronger societies are the kinds of societies where women aren't marginalized. And Global Europe, as an instrument, is a strategic instrument.
It should be ambitious. It should also take responsibility. And I think it should also serve European values, and that should really be defined as our common purpose. And I really look forward to working on this opinion together. And when we just look at the amendments, we will support the role of women, and this should be supported.
Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you, Luka Shieszka. It is always tiring. I know. Sorry. I made a mistake, but it's just a kind of sorry.
Sorry about that. And now from the S and D, Alessandra Moretti. Thank you.
Alessandra Moretti
You, Madam Chair. Thank you very much to the rapporteur, Abir Alsalani, and her team for the comprehensive draft opinion. Today, the submitted document already proposes many key elements that are important to the S and D group. As stated in the treaties of the European Union, gender equality must be a guiding principle in all our work. Therefore, the principle of gender mainstreaming has to be stated explicitly to ensure a broad and targeted approach to gender equality in all MFF files.
The expenditures under discussion have to be mainstreamed accordingly, as reaffirmed in previous documents and in the current MFF. The Commission's commitment to gender budgeting must remain firm and visible. It is of utmost importance that Global Europe supports measures against the worldwide backlash on gender equality and women and girls' rights, both online and offline. Ensuring security and safety for women and girls requires eliminating gender-based violence, eradicating poverty and addressing its disproportionate impact on women, and guaranteeing access to quality education, including sexual and reproductive health and rights. Addressing climate change and biodiversity loss must also integrate a gender perspective, acknowledging the different gender impacts of human-induced climate change. Security requires strengthening women's role in conflict prevention and guaranteeing their full, equal, and meaningful participation in peace processes to achieve sustainable peace, resilience, and lasting security.
Elizabeth is looking forward to the collaboration and will propose amendments to further strengthen the text. Thank you very much.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Thank you very much. Now we're worried about the disconnect between reality and the Brussels bubble, if you like. Now, the problems that affect us or affect the world, we continue on some sort of ideological line. This doesn't go hand in hand with the needs of society. Many citizens have difficulties with housing, education, street security, women's rights, and the low birth rate levels.
And unfortunately, many women fall victim to forced labor, forced genital mutilation, and other similar issues. So, we have a total lack of equality before the law. Nonetheless, we have this agenda for 2023, 2026, and the millions that are to be spent there. And at the same time, there are other necessities that have to be taken care of for us. Don't identify with that which is labeled "European values" in inverted commas, which is being imposed.
But who are we referring to? For many of us, those particular values are completely different. The dignity of human beings, the freedom to express oneself, and the freedom to practice one's faith are the fundamental rights and values that we're familiar with and that we espouse. Europe has Christian roots and Christian culture. These particular principles have to be taken on board, and they indeed represent this continent and its people.
This has made Europe a place of prosperity, a place of opportunity, and a place where many people want to come. And we're truly worried indeed because these very fundamental roots are being ruined and destroyed by these ideologies. We want a society that is based on the particular values that we all share. Now, as concerns gender equality, we're speaking about men and women. But unfortunately, this has also been included in an onslaught on maternity and fertility as well.
Many of us don't identify with this particular version of women's rights, this newfangled approach. We don't agree with it. So, it is on these particular concerns that the amendments we propose are based. We want a Europe that indeed represents the desires and aspirations of its citizens and those very founding fundamental values. Thank you very much.
Laurence Trochu
Thank you. Well, I want to stop at the case of Lambda. I think it's quite emblematic, really. You're coming back from that mission. I was expecting you to focus on the specific situation of women in India, where you see the worst in the world, this enormous business of GPA with women who are parked in factories.
I think there's a lot to be said about the dignity of women before you can satisfy the individual wishes of everyone who, on behalf of LGBT rights, uses this market. So, really, I think here, it's right under our eyes. We've got, on the one hand, Europeans with their approach, which is based on gender ideology and not on the biological distinction between males and females, who are going to use women considered as incubators in order to buy a product, a child, and then demand their rights to paternity or maternity for women who are in a patriarchal society and are struggling just to be women. And I'm really shocked that not a word, not a thought has come back from this mission on the specific situation of these women who obviously don't interest you.
Lina Gálvez
We are not done with the official report so far from the mission. So there is nothing put or not put because we haven't done it so far. I mean, just for your information. From the Greens, Alice Kunke, do you like to take the floor? Unfortunately, I wasn't on the trip, and I have no report back.
Thank you. But it is not regarding the mission, but never mind. So, this is sorry.
I mean,
Lina Gálvez
It's just, excuse me. The rapporteur was in the mission. So she commented, "Yes." Sorry. Regarding that, there was nothing to say.
I'm sorry. Okay. From the left, yeah.
Carolina Morace
Thank you, Chair. From the point of view of our committee, the severity of this proposal is the weakening of the binding commitments on gender equality. This proposal eliminates targets for the funding of dedicated initiatives, replacing them with generic gender mainstreaming without clear elements. Now we know that without any measurable element, this mainstreaming will weaken our commitments and make the results invisible. The global concept where reproductive rights and women's rights are under attack is an unacceptable step backwards.
That's why we would like to have binding targets in the text of the regulation, transparent and disaggregated measurements by gender, and connections with the local feminist groups who are often defending democracy. I'll conclude by saying that the EP cannot allow us to go backwards on this point if we want a Europe that is credible in the world. Gender equality must be structural in our cooperation and not just a principle. Thank you. Thank you, Carolina.
Irmhild Boßdorf
I was not on the trip to India, but I do know it was not on the agenda. Our criticism of the report is simple. There are too many ideological aspects, even concerning gender and climate, especially the financing: €200,000,000,000 plus a buffer. I don't think that is sustainable for funding because the money must be needed elsewhere, and it's going to come from German citizens who are paying for that. So, we're going to reject it.
Lina Gálvez
So, thank you. Are there other members who want to take the floor in this file? If not, we will conclude. Thank you. Sorry.
Yeah. It's true. Missus Alsalani, rapporteur, the floor is back to you.
Abir Al-Sahlani
Yes. Thank you so much. I need to clarify some issues when it comes to the asks that we are making, claiming that they are ideological. Women's security and peace. This is not ideological.
Women are the first responders when a crisis happens. You see it in Afghanistan even during the Taliban's rule when the earthquake happened. The women were left under the rubble because they were not touched. And if there is no EU funding for these women's organizations, they are not receiving any funding from the Taliban regime. This is not about Christianity.
This is not about Islam. It's about actually helping these women-led organizations so the women are not left under the rubble. So, making this an ideological fight and calling our asks ideological is far beyond ignorant, I have to say. I'm sorry. No.
I'm not sorry. It is ignorant. And that is also very ideological. We are making basic asks. We are saying that we have to have targets.
We are saying that we have to empower women to lead to economic growth and economic participation, so that women have to be able to have an ID card and a bank account, even if they are so-called untouchable. This is what we are calling for. We are calling for a woman who is raped to be able to end an unwanted pregnancy. This is about being on the side of women, not on the side of patriarchy or the established political system. And if you really want to care about taxpayers' money, I think that our citizens want to see a good development corporation that is effective, but also gender responsive, because there is no citizen in Europe who wants to see women suffering or an EU that chooses inaction and passivity.
If you want to be careful with taxpayers' money, then put gender targets so we can follow it up and ask the commission what they are doing and how they are doing with the money. This is about being a responsible politician and not just a populist. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much, Abir. Thank you very much. So, the deadline for amendments has been set on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, and the vote for this file is scheduled to take place during our meeting in May 2026. And the affidavit committee, which is one of the responsible committees for this file, intends to vote in September 2026.
So now we move to the next point, which is point seven in our agenda, which is the regulation establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and all the horizontal rules for the Union programs and activities. For that, we have with us Lourdes Alfredo Montoya. Don't say it. Okay. Hello.
Head of Unit Batch 01 from the European Commission. And also, I would like to thank the curators from the batch and committees, and Mr. Nicolas Herrst, with whom we have had an exchange of views. For this committee, it is absolutely important because we cannot advance on gender equality unless we advance on bringing equality to all policies through gender mainstreaming. And for that, obviously, we need gender budgeting, and we need a tracking mechanism to see how it is advancing. So, you all know that gender mainstreaming is a fundamental principle and binding commitment under Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
And for many years, together with the budget and count committees, our committee was calling for the application of gender mainstreaming in the European Union budget and for the monitoring of the development of the methodology by the European Commission. We have insisted a lot on that. Therefore, we welcome the inclusion in the 2028-2034 method proposal of a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework for gender equality as a horizontal principle, and the provision of systematic gender tracking, scoring, and gender-disaggregated performance indicators across all the Union programs. I'm talking now as a chair, but I will talk later because I am also the rapporteur representing my group, S and D, on this file. So, I'm glad to open today's discussion by inviting first Miss Avedo Montoya, Chief Economist, as I said before, Head of Unit Coordination in the Directorate General for Budget of the European Commission, to present to us the proposal.
So, thank you. Thank you very much for being here with us. The floor is yours for 7 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much for the introductory words and for the invitation to share with you the commission's proposal for the performance regulation. If you allow, I will guide you through a few slides of the presentation. I don't know who it is. Thank you very much. So first, a few words on what we are talking about.
What is this performance regulation about, and what are we trying to achieve with it? It is a horizontal regulation that applies to all the programs in the MFF. What we want to deliver is consistency through a single tracking system for spending and results, which would cover, first, horizontal principles that are and should be applied in the same way across all programs in the MFF. This goes to climate and the environment. This relates to social policies.
This also goes to the crux of today's discussion on gender equality. Horizontal principles across all the MFF programs. Second, a common monitoring system of spending and results with a list of intervention fields and with performance indicators, output, and results which are predefined so that we can have proper scrutiny of what we are achieving with the money that we are putting into these programs. And third, and I think it's very important, simplified reporting for better scrutiny and also transparency, with one portal, one single gateway where we would be reporting on all these horizontal elements. What does it bring?
In the next slide, you see that what we are trying to achieve is a consistent application of these horizontal principles. Can you move to the next slide? Consistent application of the horizontal principles, a common methodology to track budgetary expenditure, and a common list of performance indicators to monitor outputs and results, which is streamlined and also made comparable across programs. One single reporting on performance compared to 32 today, so that we have more scrutiny. And a single gateway portal, which merged the existing 30 portals of information today. This is for calls and expressions of interest.
This is also to have better information on the performance. Let me zoom in on gender equality now. How are these provisions enshrined in the horizontal regulation and performance regulation? It is the first time that we have a single set of rules and guidance for the entire budget. This means consistency across all the programs in the MFF, and this horizontal guidance needs to be read or seen in sync with the sectoral legislation.
Specific objectives for gender equality are outlined in Articles 7, 13, 16, and 17. So, gender equality is included as an objective for programs for which it is relevant and appropriate. We have provided, in an annex to this regulation, a list of programs for which gender equality is important. And you have the list below. What is the benchmark to assess the relevance of gender equality?
The benchmark can be found in the impact assessment, which provides a thorough assessment of gender equality as mandated by the better regulation guidelines amended in 2021. So, we look at the programs for which gender equality has direct relevance. This doesn't mean that programs not in the list, like Eurotome, should not or cannot promote gender equality. They can. But for instance, if we look at URATOM, this is about technical nuclear research, but they can also, in their half-targeted measures, support STEM among women.
But this is not the crux of the program, and we don't want to give a blanket classification, but really to focus on and provide a list of the programs that talk about education, employment, and health care, which are very much linked to gender. In the next slide, I want to zoom a bit and look at the gender balance. We have also provided in the regulation a requirement that when there are panels and advisory bodies, they must be gender balanced unless there are exceptional circumstances. This shows the power of having a horizontal regulation. Today, this exists, for instance, in Horizon, but it doesn't exist in other regulations.
By having this requirement in the horizontal regulation, it will be applied across the board. Data and data collection, you have them in the previous slide. We are requiring disaggregated data collection by gender so that we can better measure the gender-related outcomes of the MFF. And a methodology, which indeed the Parliament has been pushing for very much. So, we now have the opportunity to develop a common tracking methodology from the onset, from the beginning of the MFF, very much aligned with the OECD technical guidance.
Activities with gender equality as a principal objective score two. Activities with gender equality as an important objective score one. And activities with no substantial contribution score zero. How are we going to operationalize all of this? The operationalization is differentiated by the management mode of the programs.
This means horizontal principles, horizontal rules, but applied according to the management mode. For the shared management, which involves the national and regional partnership plans, Article 13 requires an ex ante check of gender equality. Each member state and each plan, also provided by third countries under Global Europe, must provide a gender equality assessment for every activity in the plan and explain how the activity is meant to contribute to gender equality. And gender equality must also be a criterion for the evaluation of proposals. This is for ex-ante share management.
Indirect management, gender equality, and criteria for the preparation of the work programs and calls. And in indirect management, it is the same. This principle and the implementing partners must comply. Tracking. Every activity's gender score is calculated according to a common methodology in every program.
And ex post, this compliance with gender equality will be assessed in the NRPPs and the plans. There will be gender equality as a criterion to evaluate the applications to the call for proposals, both in direct and indirect management. And let me go to the final slide, which compares what we have today and what we are aiming to achieve. So today, in financial regulation, there is no reference to gender equality. In 2024, you also enshrined this gender equality reference, which allows us to go beyond the current MFF and make this proposal.
Impact assessment in the current MFF did not consider gender systematically. It is now, thanks to the update of better regulation considered across the board. Today, gender equality provisions are fragmented across different sectoral acts. We are proposing one harmonized set of rules, which is calibrated by the management mode. Gender objectives today are in ad hoc rules and fragmented across programs.
We are proposing to have gender equality across the board in the programs when it is relevant and appropriate. The common methodology of gender tracking, compared to today, was developed as we went along with gender data. So today, the rules for reporting on gender data are fragmented, which doesn't allow you or us to have proper tracking. We are proposing which indicators should be disaggregated by gender in a very transparent manner from the onset. Guidance today: none. Guidance tomorrow, yes.
It is a requirement in the regulation to provide this guidance, and we will be developing it so that we all have a common framework to assess gender equality. Thanks a lot.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for coming here and also for the efforts you are putting into advancing this tracking methodology and gender budgeting. And I would like to give the floor to the co-rapporteur. So I will be giving the first of those to Jean Marc Germain.
You have five minutes each, but I mean, it's up to you. So, Jean Marc, the floor is yours.
Jean-Marc Germain
Thank you very much, and thank you for inviting us. This, of course, this target of gender equality is key to not only the Union, but also the member states. And as far as I'm concerned, I think that we should try to make it so that the performance framework would be useful not only to measure the imbalances in various fields between men and women, but also to be useful to fill the gaps when there are gaps. And we know that in most, if not all, of the files, there are gaps to fill. So first, we expect that the performance framework will be useful.
And that would also be my first question to the commission: in what aspect or to what extent would the new framework be better to achieve the goal of gender equality? What are the links between the indicators, the measurement, and the action taken by the commission or by the stakeholders to achieve gender equality? So first, to be useful. Second, you spoke in your presentation of a fragmentation approach, which was true. I mean, after the introduction of gender mainstreaming in financial regulation, the principle was then applied in every single program.
To what extent will the new approach with the performance framework lead to a less fragmented approach, and what is a good balance between what should necessarily be stated in the different regulations of the programs and the performance frameworks? To be more precise, is there a difference, for example, between the expression of gender equality, gender mainstreaming, and the link between mainstreaming and the conditions to fill the gap between the thematic regulation and performance framework? And if it happens that they are contradictory, which one is going to prevail? Then last but not least, there is a pending issue that, within the performance framework, seems to be very obvious: in all the fields, we apply the horizontal principle with rating as a percentage of expenditures, with free levels at 40% and 100%. And as far as gender mainstreaming is concerned, we have three levels, which are those recommended by the OECD: zero, for nothing, and no links.
One, for indirect links, and two, for direct links, with the objective of gender equality. So, two questions regarding this difference. First, of course, we will have to tackle it because, for now, the three-level system does not allow us to say how much money is spent on gender equality in the budget. I don't know if it's necessary to achieve the goal of gender equality, but it's an open question. And so, my here, we have this issue to solve, and your committee will have to have a position on that.
But maybe my question for now for the commission was: what is the reason for OECD to prefer those three-level systems instead of percentages applied to the number of the budget? And the second question is, of course, I guess, that you ask yourself when preparing the performance stakes within the commission if we should switch from this system to the percentage system. And why do you decide to keep the free level system? That would be my free cash flow question. Thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you very much. Now, I would like to give the floor to Nicolas Herbst. So the floor is yours now, also for five minutes.
Niclas Herbst
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me, and please forgive me, but I will concentrate a bit on the budgetary control issues. I was the Chairman of the Budgetary Control Committee until yesterday, but I am still convinced that this is extremely important. As you know, the proposed regulation creates a horizontal performance and expenditure tracking framework for the overall EU budget. So it's not generally decided, or it's generally constructed and not specifically for gender issues.
But it will shape how we measure results, how we monitor spending, and how we ensure accountability across the programs after 2027, hopefully. So, for Parliament, I think this framework will shape how we assess whether EU spending reveals or delivers real value for our citizens. So, the core of this is that the proposal consolidates performance provisions, as you've seen in the presentation of the Commission, that are currently scattered across numerous programs. It simplifies the system by reducing the number of indicators and introducing a common monitoring structure. At least, that's what we wanted to deliver.
So, simplification, of course, is welcome, but it must not come at the expense of meaningful performance information. So, performance reporting is only as credible as the data behind it. So, clear verification systems, traceability, and data governance will be essential to ensure consistency and comparability. So, tracking and spending are important, but the real test is whether funding contributes to measurable policy outcomes. So, as Parliament, we must ensure that improved transparency is matched by real accountability.
And now, it comes to the committees. What is our job, or your job, here in your committee? I think committees should assess whether the framework allows for meaningful evaluation of these priorities. Committees have a key role in reviewing the relevance and clarity of indicators, the treatment of horizontal principles, and whether certain elements belong in sectoral legislation. We would also be interested in knowing the opinion of the FEM committee on including agenda mainstreaming as a horizontal objective.
Of course. Personally, I would like to know how Fermi sees the link with financial regulation. You saw it in the presentation of the Commission, the financial regulation, and the performance framework regulation that we are working on. So, I would also want to know if including this horizontal principle in this regulation is not only okay, or if more details should be included on a, let's say, case-by-case basis in the sectoral regulations. So this is technically, I think, quite important.
So what is important for me is also that these horizontal principles do not complicate the implementation of the budget, especially for the smaller, final beneficiaries. So, we are speaking about simplification, and this should be one of our main priorities.
Lina Gálvez
Oops. Thank you. Thank you very much. So now we will go to the rapporteur and the shadows. Since I'm the rapporteur, I will give the floor to myself.
But in this case, not as a chair, but as a rapporteur. So, we'll start by answering Mr. Herfst at the very beginning. I cannot yet answer because we still need to go through the discussion within the committee with the different shadows. However, there is a lot of methodology that has been developed over the last decades on how to better include gender equality as a horizontal principle, as an objective both in the budget and in how to control and track this expenditure. There are also some guiding principles that have been discussed internationally, mainly within the OECD framework, but also at the United Nations.
And obviously, the European Commission has also been advancing, as well as the European Institute for Gender Equality. What we really, at least I, will propose—and I would like to insist on this in the work here, the other firm committee—is that simplification will not be done at the expense of our democratic principles and values. And we had a recent attempt with Horizon Europe, which is the only main program with gender conditionality included. And a few months ago, we almost lost it for simplification purposes. Finally, I'm also the rapporteur there at Horizon Europe for my group.
So finally, we stopped this kind of simplification. But, obviously, for us, it's not that we disagree with the simplification, but it cannot be done at the expense of gender equality. But you are right. We really have to measure our policy outcomes and make it clear. So I would like to call the commission to say that, obviously, we have also followed very much the 2021 Court of Auditors report that was saying very clearly that we were not following the gender mainstreaming because we did not really have a gender budgeting and a gender tracking methodology.
Yesterday, they published a report saying that they are seeing some advances, but not clear ones. So, I would like to know what you think about yesterday's report. Especially, they are saying that the no-harm principle is not always a good principle for gender equality. So, I would like to know what you think regarding that. Just also to add that HEM has always played a consistent role in advancing the treatment of gender equality as a cross-cutting priority in the European Union Financial Planning, pushing for methodologies that not only quantify spending but also assess how the money actively contributes to gender equality outcomes, so that it will also be the core part.
Also, we want and will exercise rigorous democratic scrutiny and apply appropriate political pressure to ensure that the commission's tracking framework fully integrates the structural budgetary dimension of gender equality. And for sure, with the help of the shadows for other political groups, we will offer suggestions for stronger monitoring to not only ensure accountability but also to make sure that gender equality remains a measurable and politically prioritized objective. For that, I will also ask, and that will be my last question as part of the intervention. How do you think we can improve data collection? Because it is true that there are no gender-disaggregated data for everything.
And this is sometimes not enough. We need to advance also more gender statistics, as it was a huge advance a couple of decades ago. But in recent years, especially after the financial crisis, statistical institutes all over the world, except for some exceptions, have not been really advancing in gender-sensitive statistics because it's not only a question of sex-disaggregated data. A good example is the time use survey that will come out very soon in Europe, but sometimes with samples that are so small that they will not allow us to know to what extent our budget. And the way we have spent that budget is really moving towards a big agenda quality or not.
So I've stopped here, and now I'll give the floor to Juicy Prince from EPP. The floor is yours. Two and a half minutes.
Giusi Princi
So, I'd like to thank you very much. I'd like to thank Madam Montoya for the presentation of this particular report. So, there are concrete opportunities to create a more transparent union on this particular issue, reinforcing the possibility of transforming values into measurable, concrete things. So simplification ought never to be forgotten. And it's really something very important for making sure that there's gender equality and moving forward in terms of democracy as well.
It's a study which is an opportunity, actually, because the experience in this particular period until 2027 shows us that mainstreaming and Regulation 21, or June 21, 2021, on gender parity has been extremely important. Of course, we need a systematic approach as well, and we need indices that are adequate. So the resources for this particular purpose are very limited. And that's why a system of monitoring performance allows us to understand and see where we need to intervene in order to have a true implementation and achieve that parity. So, there are a number of different complex factors as well.
We have to look at this particular issue because, indeed, there are a number of different lacunae. There are not sufficient resources in place. So, we need clear, consistent, and useful monitoring, and this has to be taken into consideration with regard to future budgets as well. We need something that is traceable, that there is traceability of resources as well, and we need greater efficacy in the policies that are implemented. So indeed, this is an issue of justice, but also of competitiveness.
For that particular purpose, we have put together, in a transversal fashion on this issue between FEM and EMPL, a mechanism that is clearer with specific indices, which are readable and understandable in order to form the necessary policies for implementation. Thank you.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Now, I don't know. First of all, I'm glad that you are here with us today. There are a number of different questions for you, but we're glad that you're here today and have been in the past as well. Now, transparent use of funds and simplification—we're all very glad about that.
And I'd like to say that there are 4 horizontal principles which concern the budget of the European Union on these particular activities. There are a number of different things I don't understand. I see that there's considerable prejudice on a number of different levels as well. Gender equality, yes, that's all very good. But what sort of methodology is being used in order to conduct the necessary assessments and measurements?
And the 35% minimum for climate and the environment. That's a percentage which is very high, broad as well, more than 30%. So these particular principles, I think all of this is very vague as well and leads to subjective interpretation. Also, there is discriminatory implementation and use of the budget as well. We want, of course, the budget to be neutral, but it appears that a lot of technical work has to be done in order to achieve that neutrality, which isn't there right now.
So indeed, we find ourselves before an ideological onslaught on this particular front. In other words, those who don't follow the particular ideology that's in place, well, unfortunately, we see what the consequences are. Issues such as maternity, increasing the birth rate, and protecting motherhood and mothers as well. This is all part of the issue of discrimination in the gender sphere. These particular issues have been completely neglected.
There are a number of different issues that have been taken into consideration. They're extremely important for everyone. We all know that the gender criteria has become an excuse to launch different projects, which we have seen in past years as well, unfortunately projects that are not along the lines of the very fundamental principles of the European Union and the fundamental values of numerous citizens. Once again, the ideological element has seeped in on all fronts. Could you please wrap up, says the chair, because you've been speaking for almost three minutes.
So, I think it would be very important to have further meetings with Madam Montoya and the commission because I'd like to know how the various projects are adopted, those that are, in other words, on the gender equality front. Now, I don't think that this particular orientation leads to pluralism and equality. Does it, I question, actually lead to any of those things at all? Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
We are talking about horizontal principles, not specific programs, just to remind everyone. So, from ECR, Laurence. Laurence. Thank you.
Laurence Trochu
You. Well, from this draft regulation, I would keep in mind three important points. The objective is to simplify and reduce the administrative burden on the beneficiaries, the Commission, and the member states. I also noted this objective of transparency, which is trying to strengthen accessibility to European funds, as well as the various steps, which will be well approved by SMEs, and the reporting obligations, which are now a lot more logical. And we can find this in the report on the performance of the budget.
But I do have questions, especially when we look at the subject for our firm committee. As I think it's the click key, I would like you to define what you mean by gender equality. Basically, if it's an equality between men and women in the sense that they both have the same dignity, I don't see any problem in claiming this as one of the founding principles for our work. But if, on the other hand, behind this expression "gender equality," you're hiding ideologies—and I'm saying this responding to a colleague in a previous discussion—well, I do remember that even though we're not going to go into details, in programs such as Horizon, there was funding for projects derived from a gender ideology, understood as denying, for instance, the biological difference between a man and a woman. So, a disagreement with everything that can be taught to us by reality.
So, I would like this point to be clarified so that we know exactly what we are talking about. Now, why is this important? Well, because we know that some member states are under pressure when they don't respond to the needs of gender equality. And usually, it is on this ideological criterion that they are attacked. So, I think that if we want to really be democratic, the answer to this question is essential.
Thank you.
Abir Al-Sahlani
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And then it is interesting, actually, how things that are not ideological, the previous term, suddenly became that. But, Madam Acevedo Montea, thank you so much for presenting the Commission's ideas on this regulation. As you might have guessed, this committee welcomes all initiatives to mainstream gender equality throughout all policy areas and in the EU budget process. My initial reactions to this regulation are positive, though I think we can do even better.
I have a few questions, and I hope that you don't mind answering them. The regulation specifies which programs and activities should aim to support gender equality in Annex 5. But gender equality is a fundamental value of the European Union. It refers to both the Lisbon Treaty, Article 2, and the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights, Article 23. What is the reason for selecting only certain programs that should contribute to gender equality?
For us, it is important that all activities and programs help steer towards gender equality from the preparation phase all the way to the evaluation phase. And in its opinion on the regulation, the European Court of Auditors points out the lack of result indicators. They see a risk that this makes it harder to measure whether actual objectives have been achieved and instead focuses on measuring implementation. Indeed, in Renew Europe, we see a need for a robust gender equality results framework that can measure real-world results and output. What ways do you see to ensure we steer towards objectives and results?
And apologies for leaving earlier, but I have a prior engagement. But my team is here, and they will take notes and inform me later. Thank you so much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you very much. I don't see anyone from Greens. And so, from the left, Carolina or Hannah. Yeah. Carolina Moracho.
Thank you.
Carolina Morace
You. And thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. Now, in our committee, the central point is not just how we trace each euro, but also what that euro produces in terms of gender equality. Gender budgeting cannot remain merely a declared horizontal principle. It must become a compulsory indicator that can be compared and disaggregated by gender in all programs.
But without common data, equality remains part of rhetoric and not something that can be measured. I'd also like to understand how this new framework will measure the real results of the policies, and not just the resources spent or the number of projects that have been funded. It's not enough to just account for the expense. We've got to see whether we are reducing the gender salary gap. It was looking at women in decision-making positions and improving services and tools to combat violence.
Without indicators that can measure these results, we're running the risk of having, yes, a more ordered system from an accounting point of view, but not necessarily more efficient from an equality point of view. I'd also like to know how this can all be integrated into the fundamental rights of the states of rights. The budget, the union's budget, is not neutral. Each euro spent strengthens or weakens a model of society. And that's why we think that gender equality must be a structured system for measuring performance, and not just an accessory.
Lina Gálvez
I don't see anyone. Other members I've seen are Rachael Garcia and Hermida Fandervales. So, the floor is yours for one minute. Thank you so much.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Chair, and thank you to the commission for presenting this framework. I'm speaking here in my role as gender mainstreaming contact person for the Reggie Committee, where I'm also the rapporteur for the Reggie opinion on tracking and performance. So, it all comes together. I have two very specific questions. One choice is not tracking interventions or actions that could have a negative impact on gender equality.
I know that for some of us it's difficult to imagine that could be the case, but I wonder if you have considered that if that was part of the process, and then at the end of the day you decided not to include it. And I would also like to ask about the possibility of including coefficients in the same way as we have for climate targets. That's one of the suggestions in different EPRS reports, as well as the ECA, which also points out that that might be a good way to go. And sorry, my third question is whether you have considered including a midterm review for the methodology, because, as was already said by some colleagues, we have no clear impact measurements. So it's all ex ante, and it's all about intentions, but it's difficult to measure the actual results.
Thank you.
Thank you. Maria Walsh, please.
Maria Walsh
Thank you very much, and thank you very much to you for sharing. I mean, picking up from the previous question, much more eloquently put by my colleague over here. I mean, ultimately, what is the cost of not doing this? And I'm not necessarily looking at this MFF. I'm looking at the next one.
I mean, 40% of our entrepreneurs in Europe are women, yet access to VC and angel funding is less than 3%. That's commission statistics; that's not being made up. We talk about competitiveness, but when you look at the German economy, 9 billion euros every year get lost due to the impact of menopause on women out of the workforce. So, are we actually seeing what is not happening, or is it when it is not being captured? And as an agri representative on this committee too, I mean, two countries in the last common agriculture policy ring-fenced funding for women.
That was Ireland and Spain because it wasn't a requirement. Therefore, like everything, what we don't know, we don't know. So, how are we going to capture the data? And ultimately, from all colleagues' points of view, spend the taxpayer money wisely and in an equitable fashion. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Okay. Thank you. And I would like to give back the floor to Miss Anne. She has already spoken. She wanted me to give you the floor, so I say you already have it.
So, it's okay. So now, Miss Athervedo, Antoya, please, the floor is yours for up to five minutes. No more, because we are already running out of time. Thanks.
Speaker 26
I'll do my best. Okay. So, let me start with the improvements and the changes compared to the current framework. We have important things to build on, and I want to stress that because the financial regulation recast is only from 2024. So, based on this MFF, since the inter-institutional agreement in 2020, we have developed the methodology with the programs already in implementation.
So, what we are proposing now is to design the system ex ante from the beginning, and this is a very important thing. This leads to fragmentation. Naturally, in this MFF, there is fragmentation in the application of the rules and in data collection, precisely because the sectoral acts were already engaged in the negotiations. So, this is what we are trying to achieve with this horizontal provision. And horizontal also means simplification, and this goes to MEP Erb's remarks as well on the simplification aspect because we are proposing a common framework, common methodology, and guidance, as well as a request to have guidance, but we differentiate implementation depending on the implementation mode.
So this is a horizontal regulation; then the sectoral acts define the policy objectives and what we are going to finance with the sectoral acts. This is about measurement, how we make sure that we measure it in a common way, and provide proper scrutiny. There were some questions about indicators. So, our methodology is very much focused on the OECD methodology. We try to use standards that are established, that are agreed upon, or agreed is a big word, but where there is a strong technical consensus that this is an appropriate way of measurement.
We are also building on the efforts that we have made in this MFF to provide a perspective for you to see how we evolve from one MFF to the other. This does not mean that we cannot track how much money we are spending on gender equality. We can, because we have our intervention field. This intervention field contributes with an indicator to gender, and we would be able to put the euro that contributes to that precisely because of this horizontal tracking intervention field coefficient, and then 2,10, and then money spent on it. So, we can measure how much money is spent on gender.
It is simpler in the sense that it provides a common framework for data, guidance, and implementation. So, in that sense, I think it does not complicate implementation for beneficiaries. It simplifies things for beneficiaries and for those who scrutinize the implementation of the budget. Then do no harm, and it was mentioned by Madam President as well. So we are following again.
The "do no harm" principle is part of the exam assessment. Every legal act that is proposed has an impact assessment. Impact assessment includes a gender assessment, and you co-legislate the sectoral act. So, the "do no harm" principle is embedded in the regulation and in the preparation phase. What we are trying to measure is, once you agree as a legislator on an act that has its own objectives, how do we measure if gender is included and the amount of money that we are allocating for that objective?
That's why the "do no harm" or a negative coefficient is not there. Data collection is indeed a common effort. What we are trying to do is, with the indicators and by providing guidance on what should be disaggregated, at least have comparability. Then, national statistical offices—okay, that's another discussion. But indeed, this is a challenge.
We're trying to provide a framework that, at least regarding your budget, we are able to measure.
Lina Gálvez
Sorry. The interpreters are asking you to slow down. Yes. So, it's extra. Just a moment.
Many, I know. I know it's my question.
Speaker 26
So, I'll do my best to slow down. There were also some questions on definitions, interpretations of principles, etc. Maybe two points of framing. What this regulation builds on is the treaty. It builds on financial regulation.
And then, what we are trying to provide at the technical level for the EU budget, whenever there are principles related to climate or gender equality, is that we can measure those. This regulation, again, builds on definitions that exist in other acts of different degrees of importance, and then it is up to each sectoral act to define which actions we want to finance with a program. This is not for performance regulation. This is for the NRPPs, for the global Europe regulation to define what type of actions. But on the type of actions and how they contribute to gender, maybe to clarify that, for instance, if there are actions that relate to accessibility to the labor force, like care facilities, this already today is tracked as contributing to gender balance, and this promotes accessibility to the market, maternity also, and this is well measured as well.
Lina Gálvez
As reproductive health, etc. They keep insisting to me if you can slow down, and I will keep insisting to you also. Yes. Do it as concretely as you can.
Speaker 26
So, okay. So these elements or actions are already measured today. Maybe a final point on the results, because that was a question. Performance regulation has intervention fields, outputs, and results. And this also applies to the midterm evaluation order.
Results take some time to become measurable. And what we want to do is at least agree on a common set of indicators, give the time for these indicators to actually materialize, and ensure that we can measure them. So, I would think that a midterm review would not allow us to have an informed view of whether these indicators are good or less good, less defined common indicators, measure, assess, compare, and then have proper evaluation, which is also a horizontal requirement in this regulation, the evaluation framework. Sorry for the speed.
Lina Gálvez
It's okay. Thank you very much. It's so interesting for us to be with you at Telenas. I would now like to give the floor back to the co-rapporteur, Jean-Marc or Nicolas.
Jean-Marc Germain
No. Just to thank the colleagues and the commission for this very useful meeting. Of course, it's just a start, and we will have many other questions and many topics that we want to deepen. But thank you for the invitation, and that was useful for us to hear the first concern on that file. Thank you again.
Thank you. Nicolas?
Niclas Herbst
Nothing much to add. But earlier today, we agreed on the time schedule and how to proceed. I'm really looking forward to our cooperation.
Lina Gálvez
So, thank you. I will be brief as well. I would like just to thank the commission, also the co-rapporteur, the shadow, and other members from the fund committee for us. It is an essential aspect. So, we hope all together we can really advance on this, tracking this common tracking methodology in order that we can all improve on gender equality within the European Union and also in our external actions.
So thank you very much. Thanks a lot. And so now we move to our next and last point. So I make a braid of two or three minutes because the rapporteur has not yet arrived, and I would appreciate going to the toilet. So I will just take the...
So, sorry.
Yeah.
Lina Gálvez
So, we moved to our last point, which is the EINI report on gender inequalities in health, specifically regarding gender-specific conditions. So, since we are running a bit out of time, I will not make any introduction. And just to remind you, the draft report was presented on the 27th of January 2026, and the deadline for amendments was February 4. A total of 516 amendments have been tabled. And with the information that I've shared with you, I would like to first give the floor to the rapporteur, Billy Kelleher, for his presentation. 5 minutes.
So, thank you for being here, and the floor is yours.
Billy Kelleher
Thank you very much, Chair. And just deepest apologies to members and to everybody else with regard to my late arrival at the committee. But it was I who was at another committee. I had given commitments to speak to the run-over. So, apologies again.
So there were 518 amendments, as you've outlined, Chair, and I don't intend to go through them all this evening. I think it would be more appropriate to distill them down and have that debate at a later date. But I do want to say at the outset, I think the fact that there were 518 amendments tabled shows the extent of the interest in this issue, but also the breadth of the issue as well. It's quite a broad-based debate that's happening in the context of gender-specific inequalities in health care as well. Gender inequalities pervade every aspect of the health system, and there is also evidence of a lack of prioritization of gender-specific issues.
But I'm actually heartened by two things. Firstly, a large number of these amendments are on possible solutions rather than just highlighting the problems. They're very solution-oriented and focused. And I believe that a lot of these solutions that are presented in the context of the amendments could be feasible and effective. So, I do welcome that.
Secondly, there is a lot of overlap in the amendments, showing that several groups share the priorities of the report itself. And this provides a solid base for negotiations and for delivering a robust, ambitious report. In terms of compromises, we were limited to the topics we could include in the draft report. So, I feel there's a lot of scope to explore and highlight many other conditions and inequalities in the compromise amendments. As you know, there is a restriction on the length of a report, but, obviously, in the context of the compromises, we can scope it out a little bit broader than what we were able to do with regard to the conditionality on the length of the original report.
In particular, in regard to the section on gender-specific conditions, for example, we might look at the need to prioritize preventative care such as screening for cancers and vaccinations, and ensure equal access to preventative care. The recognition and treatment of pain, which was also highlighted quite clearly,
A lot.
Billy Kelleher
The prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal diseases. Diabetes care, which was also highlighted quite a lot, the prevalence of mental health issues and the difficulties in accessing care, fertility care including the need for much better information and education for young women and girls in fertility, and the undervalued role of informal carers and the need for greater support. So, in terms of my approach to the report, there are a lot of amendments, but I don't think that means the report should end up being a thesis, to be truthful. So I really hope that, rather than people taking ownership of their amendments and not letting them go, we try to bring them together to ensure that we have a report that's concise but stays within this scope, highlights the priorities on the issues we've outlined, and then underscores that with solutions to the challenges in terms of inequality, specifically gender-oriented. So that would be my hope.
We have an opportunity to deliver a comprehensive European Parliament position on inequalities in health and a clear, targeted ask to the Commission and to the member states. Given the level of overlap among the amendments, I would urge all of the shadows to show a willingness to compromise and to focus on our common objective. One underlying theme that could run through this report is the element of bodily autonomy and choice. And, you know, I certainly hope that we can ensure that we strike at least a tone on this fundamental issue with regard to bodily autonomy and choice, and then we can scope it out beyond that as well. But look, I understand; I've been in this place since 2019.
There are obviously going to be varying views on us. Women's rights, to me, are nonnegotiable, but I know that others are negotiators. But they're here and entitled to put forward their point as I am. But, look, at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is ensure that we can highlight the inequalities that are affecting women and girls throughout the European Union with regard to health care, and the inequalities that are deeply embedded in us. But more importantly, we must come forward with proposals and solutions to address these particular issues, and be very clear that women's rights and health care are fundamental rights that must be protected and embedded in systems for the future.
And I think that this parliament has the willingness to do that, and it could be a very good day for us as a committee to strike a balance on that particular issue. Thank you. Sorry, I want to thank everybody for their amendments as well.
Okay. It is a great meeting.
Billy Kelleher
And I'm looking forward to finishing them off over the next weekend.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much for your work and your words, because indeed, I'm sure that these would be the priorities of this committee. And now we'd like to pass the floor to Maria Walsh, EPP. So the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.
Maria Walsh
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to our reporter, Billy Kelleher. You know, it's funny. Yesterday, Christine Lagarde put out a social media post that said, in 2026, globally, women will receive only two-thirds of the legal rights of men. And I think health care is the most extreme example of the lack of certainty and legal protection. I really want to begin sincerely by thanking the secretary and the rapporteur's office for this.
As Billy shared, 516 amendments were submitted, and it's great to see so many amendments focusing on stronger recognition of endometriosis, greater attention to mental health, improved cardiovascular care, and better representation of women in clinical trials. These are essential elements, and it's encouraging to see them so widely supported. However, I must say, I fully agree with the rapporteur. To be truly effective in this body of work, we cannot let it become a Christmas tree or a thesis, as Billy pointed out, overloaded with additions. And I think we need to streamline really clear language about what women are asking us to deliver and our allies.
It's important that we deliver that in a strategic manner. It needs to remain focused, clearly identifying the challenges and putting forward concrete, actionable proposals. And like that, while I have a different perspective on SRHR, I can appreciate that not all is that, but I hope our debate and discussion is not just on SRHR. There are so many other issues women are facing. And I think the last two reports that we voted on today, hopefully, will cease a lot of that noise, and that we can actually start delivering for women in the many areas they're asking us to deliver, like health care.
With that being said, I really look forward to the upcoming negotiations. Working alongside an Irish person always gives good flavor, so I'm looking forward to it. And Billy has been an advocate for women's rights for generations. I don't want to age him, but for generations. And I'm looking forward to having a strong body of work put forward for women.
Thank you. So, thank you.
Lina Gálvez
I hope this good Irish music will also help us move on beyond the noise that normally involves health rights, because we have a lot to do in this file. And so, the floor is, Sandy. The floor is yours.
Cecilia Strada
Thank you. I'll speak Italian. I must apologize because I won't be able to stay until the end of the discussion. There's another commitment which, unfortunately, I cannot skip. I'd like to thank the rapporteur, the colleagues, and the shadow rapporteurs.
It's wonderful. Notice that most of the amendments start from a fundamental point. Without health, there is no gender equality. There is no economic independence. Women's health is essential for real equality. We can also see that, on certain points, there is an agreement between various amendments.
A point in common is the need to have an intersectional approach for women, which recognizes how health discrimination is connected with economic and social factors, working conditions, lower income, insecurity, and housing. All this influences access to care, especially for the most vulnerable: the disabled, the immigrants, and even those from disadvantaged rural areas. We share the need to overcome a medical group that is based on the male body, actually the white male body, which has brought bias in diagnostics, research, and therapy. We need research aimed at women, data that can be aggregated by gender and by socioeconomic status. We have certain pathologies that affect women in a different way.
And women have to be considered with their differences throughout their whole life, looking also at prevention and a group of chronic pathologies and mental health in visible areas such as perimenopause, menopause, reproductive health, and sexual health. When we look at the digital elements, we'll start talking about the impact and how the image of a female body is built on social media and influences mental health and self-confidence, especially for younger girls. We want to show the need for equitable, accessible health services that can also counter certain types of medical violence, and it has to be equal for everyone. We must have a European strategy for female health, put it within equal rights and with adequate resources, because health is a question of fundamental rights, as has been said, and also democratic development, because female health is not only a question of women. It's a question of society.
Cecilia Strada
Healthy women mean a healthy society, and the opposite is true as well. Thank you.
Well, thank you very much.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
I'd like to thank you for these amendments. We agree that we must go ahead with this. We look mainly at things that concern women. We must look at the investigations. We've got to address the question of prenatal diagnosis and gynecological activities.
This is key for women's health. And we must have a serious commitment from the institutions. It's very important to include women in clinical tests so that we can look at questions of the application of types of drugs. We've got to look at the real biological differences, and we have to bear this in mind in our health policies. It appears that this report, instead of integrating them, gives a subjective value such as gender, the concept of gender.
We've got to look at this virtual body, and we have to try to assess this as an objective that has to be examined, especially when we're looking at the question of abortion, too, and when we're looking at equality between male and female. You can't do this by dealing with women who look poorly at maternity. We've got to look at the gynecological health of the women and also at their reproductive health. We've seen in this committee that there's more interest in pushing the choice question, which is another question that deals with women. And we have to recognize that pregnancy is important, as well as the perinatal health of women.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the real situation of our health systems, where we find that many professionals can't treat their patients correctly. There's insufficient research, and we see this in many cases. There are women who are also health operators, and as women, we don't have time to respect a date or an appointment that was given a long time ago. At the same time, we must look at informed consent, which is essential for certain types of activities. This right to training is not always guaranteed.
Sometimes, it is seen as a threat when it is a question of abortion or contraceptives. We have to look at, respect their body, their maternity, and give them more research and more support. Yes. The work on this text, which is about health, is disappointing because, although I have suggested many amendments, there are some requests in this text that have nothing to do with a scientific approach. And I'm afraid, just like my colleague here, that this report is not sufficient.
Laurence Trochu
We've got to, it's a bit like a Christmas tree. We've got to remove some of the decorations so that this report will be really useful for women. Some examples: luckily, trans people aren't involved in research because they aren't representative. Luckily, pregnant or expecting women don't undergo clinical tests because many precautions are necessary for the health of the child. That's a good thing.
And then there's another question of abortion. Again, we see that this text reinforces this inequality between men and women when we start saying that men, as if we were saying that men can be pregnant and have access to abortion. Otherwise, I don't understand what it means. So the real subject has just been touched upon, which is endometriosis, which is rampant in our societies. Menopause, colleague, earlier in the budget discussion, also mentioned the cost that this represents: €9,000,000,000.
Now, I also deplore the fact that this report doesn't have a more scientific approach. I deplore the fact that, all of a sudden, it leaves the benefit to ideological thoughts, and that is a reason why amendments will be important. Thank you.
Mélissa Camara
You. Thank you, Raphauteur, and thank you, Shadow. Looking at the amendments that have been submitted by the various groups, you can see quite clearly that there are two different routes for this. One is that of treating differences in health as technical, improving data, and correcting certain biases. These elements are obviously important.
No one is contesting this. But it is not enough. The second route is more required; it states that these inequalities are not natural. It's structural. Medicine has been developed with a male bias, which is not really adapted.
There's a lack of data for various population groups. Identifying specific pathologies is not a question of ideology. It's a question of justice. And it's important to bear in mind and consider that the socioeconomic and cultural elements of health are important. Migrant women, poor women, disabled women, and trans people all have certain difficulties in accessing care.
If we want to be consistent, we've got to have an inter-institutional approach. Certain amendments are trying to reduce the difference between biological sex and gender. But these differences will not be eliminated simply from a scientific point of view. Inequalities in health are due to a system, and I hope we will follow the second route. So I hope that these commitments would follow the second route, strengthening the obligation of publishing data by gender, looking at what is included in various clinics, including pregnant women, looking at certain types of violence, and looking at the sexual and gender mythologies as part of this.
But these questions aren't resolved by statistics. It means guaranteeing everyone access to health care, and this requires clear policies. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Interpreters are sometimes needed, I'm pushing a bit on time, and there is not enough. From the left, it is Hannah, Gedin. The floor is yours for two and a half minutes. But.
Hanna Gedin
Thank you so much. I will speak in Swedish.
Thank you so much once again for the excellent draft. And we do know that access to health care is not just a fundamental right. It's a very important question. If you ask European citizens, it is an important political question. And so, I agree with what the rapporteur said about focusing on solutions, and I agree with a lot of what he mentioned before.
So, I think we see some really good opportunities to find compromises. I do not agree with what was said about sexual and reproductive health, that it should not be included, because I think it should be a central, integrated part of Europe's equality policy. And we just heard that there should be ideological reasons for that. Yes. It's a very concrete problem for women overall in the EU, and sometimes women even die from it.
So, I also think we should recognize violence and fight against violence against women. And what we're mentioning about socioeconomic and geographic differences is important. We also have to mention the problems that arise when we see privatization within health care, and how that really undermines access to excellent health care for women. We want to ensure access to birth control and also the HPV vaccine because it is important for women to have those available. And we also want to point out the problems we have with mental health as well.
And I think another important thing is that the commission has to follow up with training, especially when we're talking about sexual and reproductive health. And I think it's important to mention my proposal about women and sports, where you see the same problems within health care: that medicine and equipment have all been tried on men. And we also look forward to working together and reaching all kinds of compromises that we can attain on this important question.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. I don't see anyone from ESN. So, if there are other members who want to take the floor, Emma? Yeah. Emma Ravowitz from S&D.
Emma Rafowicz
Of course, I'd like to thank the rapporteur and all the group representatives for their work. I think it's important for us in this Parliament. Women are not less ill than men, but they are less cared for. Now, the point is that the numbers show this diagnosis arrives late. Women's problems are often minimized.
Sometimes, treatments are not adapted. Often, women have to follow a certain type of medical treatment which is designed for and aimed at men. For instance, for years, endometriosis was considered female fragility, as if pain was normal, as if suffering was a precondition of being a woman. It's time to give equal access to health care for women and put them at the heart of clinical trials. And this report will refuse to go any further.
And how can we talk about the health of women without talking about my voice, my choice? Tomorrow, the commission will have to decide on this citizens' initiative. We've managed to be a majority in this committee, a majority in parliament that we have to let the 2,000,000 of 20,000,000 Europeans, and we can't allow them to wait for a safe abortion in Europe. We've got to act, and we must continue acting. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
And we'll give the right answer to this initiative and the backing from parliaments. I would like to give the floor back to the rapporteur. So the floor is yours. We are already running out of time because we have coordinators, but the floor is yours.
Billy Kelleher
Well, thank you very much, and I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions to this particular report. I have bad news, I suppose. I'm not ideological. I'm neither a slave of the left nor a master of the right, but I am a pragmatist of the center. So, I look at these things based on fact and science.
And if you look at the report, it's quite clear. You know, the report identifies shortcomings across the entire care pathway systems, from research and clinical trials through to diagnostics, treatment, and financing. And these are all facts in terms of the issue with regard to gender inequalities in health care. And this is rooted in the long-term, sustained focus on the male body, as has been identified previously. As a result, gender-specific differences affecting women's health have often not yet been sufficiently researched.
And if you look at the investment gap in the areas of research itself, it is very evident that the majority of funding for research is not on women's health areas. It just is not. So I think we have to be very honest. Some people may find these conversations uncomfortable, but we have to accept that these are the facts, as outlined in the statistics and data, and sometimes in the lack of data with regard to women's health care as well. Endometriosis was, for example, highlighted on several occasions.
I mean, my country alone, which we would consider to have fairly good health care systems, diagnosis can take years. And women can be completely debilitated for many years until a diagnosis occurs. And that's just one very specific area. In the area of preclinical trials, for example, the research predominantly relies on male animals. So, we have the case from even the preclinical trial stage.
Male animals are used. From the very early infancy of clinical assessment of the efficacy or efficiency of a therapy or a medicine, it is biased in terms of its outcomes. And I know that the European Medicines Agency, for example, has highlighted this and has now, through regulation, encouraged that pregnant women and breastfeeding women be involved in trials as well. But from the very early stages, there is bias in terms of outcome. So, these are real issues that I think we have to be very honest with ourselves about and look a little deeper into the results, which may ask us some uncomfortable questions for those people who have expressed concerns about the report itself.
Nothing that I put in the report was put in because of an ideological view. Nothing. I have advocated for women's rights for a long period of time, but it is not included because of a political view. It is put in there because of the fact, a statistical fact in the main. And women do die because they don't have access to termination of pregnancy.
Like, they do die. It has happened in Ireland, and these are real people. And we've had these debates in our own parliament in Ireland, and we did have those debates in other countries that today have restrictive abortion practices and regulations governing access determinations in their own countries as well. But while we're having those debates, women are put at risk at the very least, and tragically, they can die as well. So these are the things that I believe we have to face up to in the report itself.
So, look, I like to work in a collegial environment. And the reason I do that is I believe that when we work in that way, we can really bring all sides together in framing a report that I want to leave, not as a legacy for myself, but that we will leave a legacy as a parliament that would incentivize the commission and others to bring forward regulations and directives over the next number of years that would really embed in our public administrations, both at an EU level and also at a national level, around the issue of the efficacy, the assessment of medicines for women, the availability of therapies for women, and that we would just embed that across the entirety of the European Union. And I honestly believe there's enough goodwill in this room to do that, and there's certainly enough expertise and competence to do it as well. So, I look forward to working with you. My office is available all the time, so feel free to reach out.
Sometimes, people might want to have uncomfortable conversations with me. I'm very willing to do that. I've been a public representative my entire life, so I know full well how to facilitate discretion and integrity as well. So, thank you very much.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much for your work, your words, and also to the other shadows for this very important file indeed. In health and medicine, women are the other, not the norm. Even if, as I say, not because I want to say it, but because it's facts and data, we are 10 million more women in Europe. So, we are not the other or a minority, but more than half of the population, and bodies to be alive are taken into consideration too.
So, I understand that the negotiations for compromises will start next week. Is that right? And the subcommittee is currently planning to vote on their opinion on 04/23/2026, and the vote in this committee fund is currently scheduled for our meeting on June 22nd and 23rd. So, having said that, thank you very much. Thank you very much to the interpreters as well, and to everyone else.
And now I will ask all the people who should not attend the coordinator's meeting to leave the room, and those who can stay, to stay because we have to start the coordinator's meeting. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.