Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-27-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070927.3.4-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, to begin with I must thank my many colleagues who contributed to this document. Seven years ago I was co-rapporteur for the directive, and we are now discussing the report on its application. Parliament’s position has been unanimous throughout, apart from one or two dissenters who, as you will see presently, tabled amendments. We have debated at length and sometimes fiercely, on the sharing of the burden of proof, for example, but happily we never lost sight of the common objective and I hope too that you will see this report as a common undertaking.
Time for a positive note, maybe. The good thing is that virtually all countries now have equality bodies. That is an important achievement, and in many countries those bodies concern themselves with racially motivated discrimination and with discrimination on other grounds too. I welcome that. But sadly not all bodies have the funds they need to carry out their remit, and so I ask the Commission to consider that point too in its evaluation of how anti-discrimination laws are being implemented. Can the Commission comment?
To conclude, Mr President: I am proud of the legislation. Progress has been made on transposition, but not yet enough. Many countries have not yet transposed it in full. But even where they have done so to the letter, we still need to be sure that people are properly informed of their rights, because if they are unaware of those rights they cannot invoke them, and that is so very important when it comes to fighting discrimination.
In 2000 we voted by a generous majority in favour of the directive, which can rightly be described as revolutionary. Discrimination was banned Europe-wide – in employment, in social security and housing, and equal treatment was made compulsory. I was and still am inordinately proud of that. Commission, Council and European Parliament did a good job there. But that does not mean, of course, that things have changed very much on the ground. A lot of discrimination still goes on.
In recent years instances of discrimination and racism have actually increased, both in number and in seriousness. In most countries, unemployment is significantly higher amongst migrants than amongst the rest of the working-age population. There is more racially motivated violence. Legislation is very important in countering discrimination, because it sets the standard. It tells people what the European Union stands for, how we should behave towards one another and what cannot be tolerated. Legislation also gives people a means of redress against discrimination.
The European Commission is now busy checking whether Member States have properly transposed the European rules into their national laws. I talked about it just this week with Commissioner Špidla, and it is clear that the Commission's intentions are good here – it is keen to ensure, with Member States, that the legislation is implemented. And my compliments to the Commission on that.
But I cannot help but think that it needs a bit more zip, a bit more oomph. These laws were supposed to be implemented in 2004. There was much talk of sensitivities and difficult details, but when the present Commission took office you announced that measures to combat discrimination would be at the heart of your policy and you are already over halfway through your term. I have the greatest admiration for what you have done so far, but I hope you are going to be twisting Member States’ arms a little harder. That is vital.
Fewer than half of all Member States have implemented the directive fully. In many of them the definition of direct and indirect discrimination, intimidation and the burden of proof has not been correctly transposed. There are some Member States which certainly prohibit discrimination in employment but which saw it as a step too far to ban it in the provision of goods and services. But those are precisely the areas where there are many problems.
Take education, for example. According to the new EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, children from Roma families are inappropriately being placed in schools for mentally handicapped children. Or take housing; apartments are routinely advertised with the comment that the complex is ‘foreigner-free’. That is unacceptable.
The banning of discrimination, in other areas as well as employment, must be made effective immediately. A law is only effective, Mr President, if people know their rights, but according to Eurobarometer only 35% of people questioned think that there are anti-discrimination laws in their country. Fewer still say they would know what to do if they became victims of discrimination themselves. How is the Commission going to guarantee that the law becomes a reality in people’s lives? Informing people is a stated obligation in the directive, but how does the Commission propose to ensure that that obligation is enforced?
Mr President, even when people do know that a law exists, their path may still be beset by obstacles, because sometimes there are problematic rules and requirements. In some countries the period for filing a complaint is very short, as short as 30 days, for example. The rest of the procedure, by contrast, can be ridiculously long and complicated. Infringement of anti-discrimination laws must be met with effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. That was very nicely said in the directive; we were all agreed on it. But very few countries have adequate sanctions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples