From: Björn Skolander PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE For immediate release Brussels 28/01/97 15.00 MEPs WITHHOLD EQUAL TREATMENT FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS Members of the European Parliament have rejected a report which would have guaranteed an end to discrimination against its own staff members who are women, members of ethnic minorities - and lesbian or gay. In a surprise move yesterday (Monday) the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament rejected a report which, among other things, would have extended equal treatment to gay and lesbian members of the EU's staff who have legal partnerships in their own countries. The EP has in the past been consistently supportive of gay and lesbian rights. In a major report (The Roth Report) on Gay and Lesbian rights adopted no more than 18 months ago, the Parliament asked the European Commission to take steps to end discriminatory treatment against lesbians and gays, including those on the EU's own staff. Again, in its contribution to the Inter-governmental Conference (or Maastricht II), the Parliament demanded that discrimination against lesbians and gays be forbidden by the EU. This latest development therefore comes as a surprise to those who follow this issue - not least the 350 members of the EGALITE group of lesbian and gay members of the EU's own staff, based in Brussels and Luxembourg. EGALITE's Co-President, Marion Oprel - herself an employee of the European Parliament - said: "The Parliament has repeatedly urged the ending of discrimination against lesbians and gays - but when it has a chance to put its own house in order and set a practical example to other European employers, it has failed. Its credibility as an employer and as a legislator on working conditions has been badly damaged by this." The Report, drafted by Swedish Green MEP Malou Lindholm, recommended measures to guarantee equal treatment for women, ethnic minorities and lesbian and gay members of the EU's staff. Swedish and Danish lesbians and gays can currently register their partnerships in their own country, giving them and their partners similar rights to married people. The Report proposed that the EU institutions should follow suit for their employees whenever they were in such registered partnerships - and, following other employers such as IBM, the World Bank and the European Monetary Institute, that the same rights be given to non-married couples - both heterosexual and homosexual - if they register their partnership with their employer. Although the Parliament's Committee voted for all of the separate amendments, it rejected the report in its totality - in a vote taken when several Socialist MEPs were out of the room - throwing the process into confusion. Division also surfaced in the EU's executive body, the European Commission, with its civil servant representative at the meeting arguing against the Report, whilst his political boss Commissioner Erkki Liikanen is said to have been consistently supportive of the campaign for gay and lesbian equality. "Homophobia has once again reared its ugly head and in an institution we had believed to be free of it," said Marion Oprel EGALITE's Co-President. "But the victims of this homophobia are not only homosexuals, but also women and ethnic minorities, who were equally the beneficiaries of this Report. In throwing out all of Mrs Lindholm's recommendations, these MEPs have ensured that the EU's staff policy will stay rooted in the mentality of the 1950s. What does this say about the EU's commitment to equal rights for all Europe's citizens? If it can't even treat its own employees equally, then what hope is there for women, ethnic minorities and lesbians and gays - in Europe as a whole?" "We call upon the European Parliament as a whole to overturn the decision of this Committee and to reinstate Mrs Lindholm's recommendations when this issue is discussed by a plenary session, in line with the Parliament's previous policy." Further information: Kieran Burns (Secretary: EGALITE) tel. Brussels (02) 296 20 93. e-mail: kieran.burns@sdt.cec.be Background information follows. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE PUTS OFF EQUAL TREATMENT OF THE EU INSTITUTIONS` FEMALE AND GAY STAFF TILL THE NEXT MILLENIUM? Over the years the institutions of the European Union have made themselves champions of equal rights, pressing for non-discrimination and human rights clauses in the EU Member States` laws and in international agreements. Paradoxically, this advocacy of explicitly stated non-discrimination outside has not been parallelled inside the institutions, whose employees have had as their basic contract of employment a set of Staff Regulations little changed since the fifties. The Staff Regulations now cover employees from fifteen countries, not just the original six, and with further expansion of the EU in the next century this is set to rise. A move to catch up came in 1993, with a proposal from the European Commission to incorporate into the Staff Regulations a clause on equal treatment of men and women. As is usual practice, the European Parliament was also consulted, produced a report (the Vayssade Report ),and called for amendments to expand the scope of non-discrimination. It was not until 1996 that the Commission returned with an amended proposal. This set out the principle of equal treatment without regard to race, political, philosophical or religious beliefs, sex, or sexual orientation. In the intervening years things had changed inside the European institutions: EGALITE, a group established in mid-1993 to represent gay and lesbian European civil servants (now with around 350 members), added its weight to the campaign for changes to the Staff Regulations. In January 1994, the European Parliament reported on equal rights for gay men and lesbians in the EU (report by German Green MEP Claudia Roth) and called for an end to discrimination in policy and legislation. In May 1995, Leo Klein Lebbink, an employee of the European Parliament, drew up a petition calling for the rights of employees in stable same-sex relationships to be recognised by the institutions, particularly as such recognition was already available in individual Member States. It gathered 700 signatures. In March 1996, the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which will determine the shape of the EU in years to come, got under way. The European Parliament`s contribution to the debate called for a comprehensive non-discrimination clause in the successor to the Maastricht Treaty. The EU institutions lag behind other international organisations like the World Bank and the European Monetary Institute, whose recognition of unmarried partners can bring entitlement to benefits. However, in response to pressure from their employees, the European Parliament and European Commission introduced partnership-recognition forms giving unmarried partners access to some facilities (restaurants and canteens and language classes, for example). Responsibility for reporting to the European Parliament on the Commission`s new proposed changes to the EU Staff Regulations fell to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens` Rights and member Ms Malou Lindholm, a Swedish Green MEP. The Lindholm Report, with its insistence on genuine equal opportunities in the European public service and a more accurate reflection of the changes in society in the Member States made further amendments, pressing for references to a specific marital status to be removed. and for an equal opportunities watchdog to be set up It faced its final Committee vote on Monday 27th January, prior to being debated by the full Parliament. Nobody who has followed developments over the past five years could have imagined the outcome of this vote. Although virtually all the Lindholm Report`s amendments were approved individually, the Report as a whole was voted down. The European Parliament is noted for acting as a catalyst for change. This time it has struck a blow to non-discrimination in recruitment, employment and employer-employee relations on its own doorstep. If this issue is now shelved for the foreseeable future, the European Union will enter the next century with employees in its Member States far ahead of its own staff in terms of conditions of employment. With the European Union occupying a prominent (and some would say notorious) role in shaping employment legislation, we can only wonder where it will stand if it sets no example, particularly to the countries which are next in the queue for membership.