Proposition 50K1919

Projet de loi portant création de l'Institut pour l'égalité des femmes et des hommes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

July 10, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

anti-discriminatory measure gender equality institution of public utility participation of women

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• François Dufour (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Paul Tant (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Oct. 16, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the draft law that presents prevents the establishment of the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men. The Institute will be established alongside the existing Centre for Equal Opportunities and Anti-Racism. Such an institute will shape the pursuit of gender equality, ensure respect for gender equality, and develop tools and strategies to develop an integrated approach to the gender dimension. Gender equality has not yet been achieved, so much is clear. In addition, the Minister cites a few examples. For example, in the labour market, you still find most women at the lowest levels and the women at the top are still white rabbits. There is no equal pay for equal work. There is still a underrepresentation of women in political representation. The new electoral legislation and the new mentality that is slowly growing may be able to change this. There are also clear differences in safety. For example, men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence, while women are most likely to be victims of domestic violence. This example shows that there is still gender inequality and the Institute will try to work out that inequality. Their

The Institute falls under the competence of the Minister for Equal Opportunities, who has a positive injunctive right. The Institute obtains the status of institution of public benefit of category B. The Institute carries out policy preparation work, also has an evaluation assignment, and also has several tasks. It is competent, among other things, to conduct studies and studies, collect and publish statistical data and judicial decisions, which are useful for formulating recommendations. The Institute also provides support – and that is important – to the associations that are active in the field. The Institute will also provide information to a wider public. The employers of the Equal Opportunities service of the federal administration are taken over and the funding is 3 million euros in the initial phase.

During the discussion of the design, or better yet before we began to discuss the design, there was a very extensive round of information. All associations currently working around this theme were invited to reflect on the text. The Advisory Committee on Social Emancipation of the Chamber has also issued opinions. What came especially out in those various rounds is the fear of many existing organizations, dome and projects, which are currently active on the ground. Of course, they fear for the survival of their further functioning. They wonder whether they can continue to operate the same way and whether they will still receive the same resources as they do today. This uncertainty about the future of the existing associations have also been expressed by several speakers in their interventions. Several members who spoke expressly supported the establishment of the fund, but still made some concerns. Ms. Cahay, for example, wondered if there are no additional recruitments needed, apart from the employees that will come from the Equal Opportunities service. She also wondered if the Institute could act in its own name or on behalf of a particular person. Most people confirmed that both could. Mr. Wauters makes a suggestion to speak in the future of a "Gender Institute", on which Mrs. the Minister said that the concept of "gender" is not really innate and may lead to more confusion. Once the concept has come into being, one can think about it.

Mr. Wauters also emphasized the importance and concern for the Institute to cooperate in dialogue with the existing associations. He also raised some doubts about the importance of the supervisory committee which will be installed alongside the existing Board of Directors and the Executive Board. Mrs De Block also expressed concern about the cost of the institute.

During the discussion several amendments were submitted, some of which were withheld. The amendment-Grauwels en co, which consists of explicitly adding in the text that there must be cooperation and dialogue with the existing organizations, meets the demand of the people on the ground. The amendment was adopted. An amendment was submitted with the request to clarify the positive injunction right of the Minister. This amendment was also adopted. There was another amendment by Grauwels en co that proposed to remove the monitoring committee. This amendment was also adopted.

The text was finally adopted with 9 votes and 2 abstentions.

Mrs. Grauwels, do you want to continue with your own opinion?

Very briefly, Mr President. We support the establishment of the Institute. Mrs. Minister, when we heard the comments this morning on intra-family violence and the bill that gives an advantage to the spouse who is the victim of it, I think the institute could have met the demand for more figures to demonstrate that intra-family violence is a underestimated problem. Since this has not been expressed in numbers until now, in the past, one has had too much the tendency to think that nothing was happening. In this regard, we are taking a step forward with a gender institute.

I will be brief. This does not mean that I do not consider this design important.

I find it important, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, to support the establishment of the Institute for Equal Opportunities for Men and Women. Why do we find this important? First, it is an important signal of the importance that Parliament attaches to equal opportunities for men and women. Ms. Grauwels has expressly demonstrated in reading the report that there is still a lot of work to be done in various areas. President: Paul Tant, First Vice-President President: Paul Tant, Prime Minister and Vice-President.

It is an important signal, but it should not be just a signal. It should also, specifically in the field, ensure that steps forward are taken, steps forward that should lead to a better coordination of the various initiatives already underway. It will have to ensure that mainstreaming is even more than it is today, becomes an evidence and an incentive for new initiatives. I would like to point out that we are very pleased that the point of the bourgeois party position is explicitly included in the draft. Ms. Grauwels has already given examples of why this is so important.

I would like to share a few marginal considerations and care creeds. We have full confidence. And you have already expressly emphasized during the discussion that this should be taken into account, but I still think it is important to put them in line for a moment. I think we must ensure that the institute does not become a moloch that absorbs too many resources and is not agile and flexible enough and above all a moloch that will overcome the work that is already well done in the field by a number of organizations. I refer, for example, to Amazon, but also to other NGOs, such as the National Women’s Council. I think we should pay attention to this in practice on the ground. You are aware of this and we will also be able to evaluate and update it at appropriate time if necessary.

Secondly, however, I would like to expressly reiterate that it is important that the organisations that are currently active in the field and that work well and that meet a certain need, that function within the framework as it is intended and by the policy maker and by the Institute, should also be able to continue their work. We must therefore ensure during the various budgetary discussions that they can remain sufficiently subsidised to continue doing that work properly and that there is also sufficient space to subsidize new initiatives or new organisations that respond to new needs. However, I would like to emphasize again – as we have included that in the opinion of the Advisory Committee – that we cannot make changes to organisations that may not function as well over time or whose objectives have been partially met. That is something else. We do not want to emphasize this, but we want to have sufficient guarantees that what runs well can continue to exist and can continue to be subsidized.

Then I would like to warn you that we must pay attention to the competence of the institute. With this I mean the competence in relation to the other policy levels in our country that also develop activities in the field of equal opportunities. I do not want to approach it negatively, but rather positively. The State Council has noted this for a while. I truly believe in the principle of subsidiarity and in the fact that we can then complementarily develop a policy in our country, which brings better and more results. By the way, the Institute can also play a role in relation to the good practices in the various fields, in order to exchange them, but I think that we must take care that within its own competences the Institute frames, remains active and remains within the federal policy.

I would like to say a little more about the explicit question that, in practice, the functioning of the Institute would provide for a clear separation between the policy preparation work on the one hand and the evaluation task on the other.

I think we again have high expectations with regard to that institute, we women in Parliament, but also those who work in the field. I especially hope that with the Institute everyone in Flanders, Wallonia and Belgium will become a little more alert and sensitive to this theme and that we can take another, further step towards gender equality and mainstreaming. So we look forward to a fruitful operation and cooperation, I would dare to say. We wish you, in any case, much success with the practice in the field with that institute.

There is no equality yet. It is not there yet. Look at our group: we have four men out of nineteen representatives. We are therefore with fifteen women against four men. There is no equality yet, Mrs. Minister. It is a pity, but it is dramatic to have to establish that precisely in the other factions the proportions are the opposite.

It is clear that women are being degraded, including in our electoral system, the way we have built our electoral system and the way we deal with it. We are on the right track because we have made some changes to our electoral system. There would be a ride system for the first two places. I would like the Gender Institute to closely monitor that we lead in the future. I think the rits should be made completely. It is good that the institute is established so that it can also constantly point out to us politicians.

This is important for the parties: even the party heads are dominated by men. This is not a good thing in itself, because both must be able to contribute. Both major social organizations have their congresses this week. I note that efforts are also being made there, but there are hardly any women at the top. I also call on the major social organizations to work on this. Let me take the example of the Family Union in Flanders. The president has always been a man, never a woman. Can you imagine that in the middle field, to which the Family Union belongs, the last word is always with a man?

There is no equality in the labour market. Mrs Grauwels’ excellent report also referred to this. Not all women are eligible in all sectors. Women work in specific sectors with low wages. That is because the function classification systems are actually made by men, and all so-called male acts are overrated against the female qualities, which are often underrated in the remuneration scales. There is also urgent work to be done.

We also note that the unemployment rate among women is higher than among men, which means that the activity rate is lower. We must urgently do something about this. Also in the policy we must carry out and try to carry out together with you, the work-family relationship offers important possibilities. In this we must go further. Time credit is one of them. This is not enough to ⁇ equality. Parental leave can also be extended.

It is also important to continue on the track of the reduction of working hours, not only the individual reduction of working hours but also the collective reduction of working hours. I think that is an important matter. In the future, we will find ourselves with time loans and with health care loans that will still have to be taken too much by women, so that we will do nothing more to the foundation: the better redistribution of labour, the reduction of working hours as such.

There is no equality yet. Therefore, we must pursue an active and positive policy. Equal treatment of men and women is not a passive right, it is an active right.

As legislators, we must take measures to promote and guarantee the exercise of equal rights and freedoms, both for women and men. You know that I advocated that the institute be called the Gender Institute. We are not so far in the naming, because indeed maybe too few people understand what a gender institute is. You therefore suggested that it indeed be called an institute for equality between men and women and that we could change. The confusion with what we have just discussed is possible. We continue to consider the term gender institute, which is increasingly used internationally, important and hope that the name will come in the future. We are glad that the institute is now there.

I have some critical comments. What we have done today for equal rights for men and women is not insignificant. We then discussed the draft law for the allocation of family housing to people who become victims of physical violence. We will vote on it tomorrow. We have recently adopted a bill to combat discrimination. We now have this bill on the Institute. In fact, it is a sacred trinity—that may not be the terms you use—which today is partially realized in the interest of the equal treatment of men and women. This is, I think, an important day. Today there are three proposals on the table that we will vote on tomorrow.

Also Ms. Van Weert and Ms. Grauwels have already pointed out that the gender institute is important. It can conduct research, provide documentation and information, compile statistics and make recommendations to the government. It will cooperate — you have accepted the amendment — with the various associations in the field, which is explicitly mentioned in Article 3. It is very important that we sign up for consultations with both women’s and men’s associations in order to promote equality.

Finally, it is also important that the institute will be able to take legal action to investigate the violations of equality. We think that is a very important instrument. The center can do that too. Independence is an important principle. The Institute can operate independently and has autonomy. At the same time – and that is the double track we stand behind – it can also work as a policy preparer. As a Minister, you have the right to make positive suggestions despite the autonomous approach. You can engage in dialogue and stimulate the institute through a positive injunction.

I would like to draw attention to three points. First, networking will be important for the institute anyway. Ms. Van Weert also referred to this. Cooperation with the communities will also be important. As a Minister, you can take an initiative with a view to interministerial consultation on the topic.

In this way, mainstreaming can be established in all administrations and all public services. We are confident that you will ⁇ do so, but you also remember that for that very reason we really wanted to see the institute fall under the competence of the Prime Minister. In any case, we are confident that you will take care of that mainstreaming. We hope that this will be the case in the long run, and that the future ministers who get the institute under their competence will be able to apply the same authority with regard to mainstreaming.

We are very pleased that we have been able to work with you in this way to realize the design. It will truly become a centre of expertise and reference, which is more than necessary and that will also prove its importance in the field. We hope that this is indeed a step forward towards equal rights for men and women.

The formula used by Mr. Wauters is worth all the conclusions. Today, we have, to repeat its terms, voted for a “Trinity” favorable to these three projects. This allows us to take a significant step towards equal opportunities, especially between men and women. I do not think there is anything to add to this statement.