Vivian Reding

When it comes to women on boards we must avoid ‘chicken or egg’ thinking

Labour Party

Based on an article originally written for LondonLovesBusiness

In a landmark moment the European Parliament today voted in favour of 40% female representation on boards by 2020. The plans, originally put forward by the European Commission’s Viviane Reding, went through the parliament this afternoon. This represents the biggest step yet in the EU’s drive to get women into economic decision-making positions.

The vote does not just represent a symbolic move, but a potential transformation of the way in which businesses operate. To achieve the kind of ‘cultural changes’ that Conservatives – such as the Equalities Secretary Maria Miller – propose, we surely need women to be at the top of companies making these changes happen. EU endorsement could therefore be the trigger for a sea-change in the way business is done; an effective end to the ‘boys club’ mentality.

Despite the fact that Germany – Britain’s most direct business competitor – this week signalled a commitment to quotas, the UK remains among the rump of EU countries which still favour voluntary or no action. This is a stance which will come under ever more intense scrutiny once the proposals passed on Wednesday go to the Council of Ministers (the body comprising the domestic leaders of the 28 Member States) next year.

With Cameron currently among the seven or so national leaders expected to block the plans, the UK government will have to explain how they expect to achieve gender parity without quotas. In light of the huge success that binding legislation has had in accelerating progress in France, Italy and Holland this will be a difficult case to make. Despite being Europe’s financial capital, Britain could once again find itself swimming against global tides as a Europe-wide consensus on gender equality builds.

The claim the government makes is that getting women onto boards will not change the ‘fundamental’ issue. The Department for Business proposes instead an educational and cultural approach, which they say will get women into executive positions from the ‘bottom up’. When I discussed this with Conservative MEP Marina Yannakoudakis on the Daily Politics yesterday she was keen to distinguish between non-executive positions and “other levels of business”. The Tory strategy is clear: depict female board representation as a sideshow – an impediment to focusing on the lack of women in management.

For me this argument is flawed. It suggests that getting women onto boards must either be the catalyst for a change in business culture or the product of it – that there can only be one, exclusive solution to this problem. This is an example of ‘chicken or egg’ thinking gone mad, and presents a false binary – as though getting women into boardrooms and making businesses more female-friendly lower down somehow contradict one another.

In fact, they are mutually reinforcing; more balance in the boardroom means a company ethos more sympathetic to women, which in turn increases the chances of women rising to board level. A virtuous circle is created. Higher quality part-time or flexible work, for example, is for me one of the best methods of preventing a pay gap opening up while women are in their thirties and forties (and thus approaching boardroom age). But it is something which companies are far less likely to consider if they do not have confident female advocates among their directors.

For Britain to capitalise on today’s vote we must stop the UK government from turning the women on boards issue into an artificial ‘top-down vs bottom up’ choice. To genuinely overcome the glass ceiling we need both: women pushing from below and women pulling them up from above. Gender parity from the tip to the base of the jobs pyramid.

With a Europe-wide consensus now establishing itself on this issue, we must increase pressure on the UK government to be proactive. We can no longer pretend that a fairer workplace will take place in splendid isolation.

Freedom of the Press in vital for European Democracy

Labour Party

Silvio Berlusconi1

As we all know, Silvio Berlusconi, the septuagenarian media magnate turned politician with a penchant for young girls, thrives on controversy.  It seems that you either love him or hate him.  I am obviously in the hate him camp.

 I have just come from a debate in the European Parliament on a resolution on “Freedom of Information in Italy”, i.e. do we think Berlusconi has too much power over the media there by controlling too many outlets at the same time as being Prime Minister.  The debate raised strong emotions and the Chamber was, unusually, awash with real feeling.  Passion at last.

 The Chamber also divided along left/right lines – again something which does not always happen.  The centre-right EPP supported Berlusconi with an enthusiasm I have rarely seen in Parliamentary debates.  You will by now not be surprised to learn that Berlusconi’s Forza Italia Party is, in fact, a member of the European People’s Party (perhaps tarnishing their moderate right credentials).  Even so, EPP Leader Joseph Daul was positively ecstatic in his speech opening the debate, a stance I doubt he would have taken had he not really believed in what he was saying.

The Socialist and Democratic Group position was very clear.  We believe Berlusconi, whose Mediaset is the largest private television and communications group in Italy and who also indirectly controls the state broadcaster RAI, has far too much power.  He is obviously not the only person or organisation in this position.  Speaking in the debate, I drew attention to Rupert Murdoch whose international media empire owns more than its fair share of television and newspapers in the UK.   

  The S&D Group wants an EU Directive on media concentration and media pluralism, a straightforward demand which I, as Co-ordinator on the Culture Committee, which has responsibility for media issues, intend to pursue.

 The Liberal Group, the Greens and the GUE (Communist Group) support the S&D view while the Tories’ European Conservatives and Reformists along with the other right wing groups are with the EPP.

 The Commissioner responsible for media matters is Vivian Reding from Luxembourg, who spoke both at the start and finish of the debate.  Although she appeared supportive to the S&D view, she is concerned about the legal base for such a measure.  I would hope this can be sorted out so that the EU can take decisive action to ensure that the people of Europe have access to a wide range of information containing many and varied views.   It is quite simply not possible to have a strong democracy when the majority of the media which they see and reads puts forward only one side of a very limited story.