Mr President, Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam has been described as a sleeping giant. It forms the basis for Europe-wide measures to combat discrimination. My job was to consider the framework directive on employment and occupation, which will lead to major changes in company practice. The experience gained with the Anti-Discrimination Act in the USA ten years ago gives some idea of what lies ahead for Europe. That is why it is quite essential for the groups listed in Article 13 to be effectively protected against discrimination. At the same time, the workers’ legitimate interests need to be considered. No wonder the French Presidency of Council described this issue as one of its priorities. Discrimination must be combated in the early stages, in cases of an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. And all the players must be involved. Human resources can only be utilised to the full in a climate of peace at the workplace. That produces an economic and social dividend. Some undertakings reject applicants for continuing and ongoing training on the pretext that they are too young or too old. Older people are discriminated against by being squeezed out of working life or by setting an upper age limit for recruitment. Job applicants who come from socially disadvantaged families or urban backgrounds or who are disabled are often not accepted. The disabled are rejected on the pretext that the clients or staff cannot be expected to stand the sight of them. The underlying intention is simply to save paying for the necessary measures of assistance for the disabled. The employers then claim that hiring disabled people represents what is called undue hardship. In the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs we defined “reasonable adjustment” very precisely in Article 2(4), together with the circumstances under which undertakings cannot reasonably be expected to pay the costs involved, i.e., if they are too small or their turnover is too low. I certainly support the call by associations representing the disabled for a separate directive. That directive could consider the differences in detail, for instance the fact that someone whose mobility is impaired has quite different problems from, say, someone who is mentally disabled. A few important points in the directive are, firstly, the rules on the burden of proof. Article 9 of the draft directive states that persons who consider themselves discriminated against, whether as unsuccessful job applicants or as dismissed workers, can seek legal remedy. They need only go to a court or competent authority to establish the facts of discrimination. The respondent, however, has to prove that he did not discriminate and must be able to provide documentary evidence. To ensure that small and medium-sized undertakings in particular are not faced with an unreasonable logistical and financial outlay, we are seeking a limitation period of six to twelve months. Secondly, the right of associations to initiate proceedings. The Commission proposal, under which associations may only initiate proceedings with the complainant’s approval, has to be welcomed. Only associations, organisations or legal entities representing the interests of employees and the groups protected by Article 13 should be entitled to initiate proceedings. Thirdly, the mediating agency. In the event of disputes, independent mediating agencies must be set up to consider the interests of both the employers and the employees. Many problems may well be resolved internally, before going to the lengths of legal proceedings. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs decided by a majority that these agencies should be set up in the EU Member States rather than setting up a central body at European level. Fourthly, the involvement of the two sides of industry. Since they are mainly responsible for settling questions of discrimination at the workplace, the social partners are best placed to work out viable solutions. And, of course, the NGOs should be involved, although the autonomy of the social partners must not be put in question at any time. Fifthly, religious communities, perhaps one of the most sensitive areas of our directive. The question is whether Member States can allow different treatment when it comes to religion or belief. I think they can! These communities make vital contributions to society in terms of social facilities such as nurseries, hospitals and educational institutions. They see the danger of having to hire people who do not identify with their values and convictions. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs voted by a large majority in favour of the compromise under which different treatment does not represent discrimination in cases where religion and belief are major requirements for the performance of a job. Equal treatment and non-discrimination are fundamental principles of the EU. We will find out at tomorrow’s vote whether we manage to build bridges, following the excellent cooperation of all the rapporteurs on this article – and let me just mention Mrs Swiebel as standing for all of them – and after the intensive discussions with the Commission and the Council Presidency. There is a real chance that we will persuade the Commission and the Council to incorporate many of our recommendations.

Political group: PPE-DE