Mr President, it was fifty years ago last week that Robert Schuman, with his speech, laid the foundation for the ECSC. Meanwhile, coal and steel have ceased being the cornerstones of the integration process. Over the past six months, it has become evident that values are increasingly at the centre of the debate. Europe as a Community of values. The importance of the directive which we are debating today threatens to become lost in the commotion about the time of issue of the French translation, the deadline for the amendments and our Rules of Procedure, whilst its very content will probably explain why we are all fighting so hard. A couple of months ago, when the content had still not been specified, all parties agreed to a swift passage of this directive. During the Portuguese Presidency, there has been a political momentum within the Council of which I, as well as other MEPs, would have liked to have made use. Technical problems were deemed subordinate to political will at the time, and this is still true for the majority of MEPs. Therefore, in addition to the draftspeople of the opinion, I would also like to thank a number of people by name for their extremely constructive contributions to the report. They are Mr Richard Howitt, rapporteur for the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, Mrs Anne Van Lancker, Mrs Joke Swiebel, Mrs Sarah Ludford and Mr Arie Oostlander. I would now like to move on to the Commission’s proposal. It embodies a sound minimum level of protection against racism by means of sanctions and independent bodies, by which we set great store. The Commissioner has done justice to the wide range of areas across which discrimination can manifest itself. The directive covers both direct and indirect discrimination, as well as the term “harassment”. My report also calls for the inclusion of incitement to discrimination. This is, for example, the case if an employer asks a headhunting agency to be selective on improper grounds. I hope that this addition can be adopted by the Commission. Parliament has also looked very carefully into the areas to which this directive applies. I have understood that some people in the Council are in favour of excluding asylum and migration policy, as well as the issuing of visas, from this ban on discrimination. I hope that I have got the wrong end of the stick here. Indeed, although a distinction based on nationality may be completely understandable, it would, of course, be quite improper to let the colour of someone’s skin be a deciding factor in their request for asylum or to treat the asylum request of a black person in distress differently from that of a white person. These days, asylum and migration policy falls within the scope of the first pillar. The deliberate exclusion of this area could not therefore be justified. A much-debated topic in this Parliament is the burden of proof. Every Member State is by now familiar with this concept, whereby both the defendant and plaintiff have a role to play. Indeed, the burden of proof has already shifted in cases where men and women are treated equally. In this procedure, the plaintiff has to supply actual facts on the basis of which direct or indirect discrimination can be presumed, and the defendant subsequently needs to refute the charges. This arrangement works well and has caused few problems. Maybe those opposing this procedure could explain to me sometime during this debate why we nonetheless have to review it and, more specifically, why there is less protection against racial discrimination than against sex discrimination. At the same time, I recognise the fact that even more protection is not essential. I hope therefore that the House, in its wisdom, will decide tomorrow to adhere as far as possible to the Commission’s original text. Unfortunately, statutory measures against racism are necessary. They provide victims with protection and a right to redress. But it is also important in the forming of attitudes. It makes it clear that Europe will not stand for racism. It is this message which this Parliament needs to broadcast. Everyone is different, everyone is equal.

Political group: Verts-ALE