Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2014-11-25-Speech-2-607-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20141125.33.2-607-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for her response, and I note her concern about the implementation of these anti-discrimination directives. What I would say to you, Commissioner, is that there is a paradox with regard to anti-discrimination legislation at EU level, and it is this: I believe many Europeans are generally aware that we have anti-discrimination legislation, and indeed that we have equality in the area of employment. Yet, reading your own reports, all available information suggests that there are very low levels of reporting, and indeed, in your report which was published last January, you gave the commonest reasons for this. These include: the belief that nothing will happen as a result of reporting; a lack of knowledge on how to go about reporting an incident; and also negative experiences in relation to inconvenience, bureaucracy and, crucially, the length of the process. So again, your report goes on to say that there is a need to make further efforts at awareness-raising and reporting, and a need to make the complaint system more consumer-friendly, as it were, or customer-friendly.
I think we need proposals on how to deal with these barriers on access to justice. We could look, for example, at the length of time during which a complaint could be made, getting rid of the short time limits that are there. We could also look at the cost of proceedings, and I think in all of that we need to link in with national actors on the ground.
I think the issue of remedies – and one of our colleagues said a few moments ago that some employers would prefer to pay the costs rather than comply with the legislation – is a very important one, and the practice seems in most Member States to be that national authorities apply the lower scale of the sanctions available. I know the Commission perhaps cannot intervene directly, but it is an important issue and it is one that makes a difference, because if sanctions are not dissuasive then they are meaningless.
On the whole issue of the shift in the burden-of-proof argument, where it is up to the respondent to prove there has been no discrimination, is that working satisfactorily and do you feel that any further action is needed?
Finally, in the context of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we have ratified that and, of course, that has certain implications for our legislation, particularly in the area of reasonable accommodation for disabled persons. Do you believe that the ratification of the UN Convention will be meaningful – that was the second question we asked you – without any further action to make the non-provision of reasonable accommodation a discriminatory action? As Ms Lope Fontagné has already said, it does not need to be costly."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples