Mr President, first and foremost, I would like to warmly congratulate Mrs Buitenweg on the fact that she managed to finish the entire report, ready for discussion and vote, at the eleventh hour today. That is the first point. When I read the report and hear the discussions, I get a strong feeling of déjà vu. Some 15 or 20 years ago in the Netherlands, I worked together with a Christian-Democrat member of government, Mrs Jeltien Kraaieveld, who was also involved in this anti-discrimination legislation in the field of discrimination based on sex. All the points raised then, together with the hesitation and conflicts, have come up again now. The hesitation mainly relates to what should and should not be included in the one report. Then, too, we realised that it is better to address the types of discrimination one by one than to try to cram them all into one act or even one directive. In addition, the rapporteur has persuaded me that it is preferable to leave out religion for that reason, because it merits a separate chapter. What would really cap it all for me is if we could withdraw Amendments Nos 15 and 29, in which religion is portrayed in a bad light. This would then render my Amendment No 63 redundant, where religion is seen in a positive light, as we would thus redress the balance and have a clean report. Mr President, I think it is important in this context to bring up the issue of the ‘distribution of the burden of proof’, also erroneously referred to as ‘reversal of burden of proof’. In the past, we have had huge arguments in the Netherlands about how this should be done and whether this could be done. We finally concluded that it was necessary and that it should also be tied in with the establishment of an independent council or independent committee for equal treatment – in fact, one of my best former collaborators currently forms part of such a committee. This would then be able to look into the extent to which particular complaints should be taken seriously, whereupon we would go to court and, if appropriate, support the plaintiff. It is then up to the party which is indicted to prove that we are wrong. That is the type of distribution of the burden of proof which is not only already operational in most Member States in the case of men and women and, as from 2001, will have to be extended to include everybody, but which also already exists in legislation on the environment, for example. There, too, a reversal of the burden of proof applies, if necessary, or so I was told by an expert in the field a moment ago. Indeed, these are phenomena which are extremely difficult to prove and which, using the traditional method, an interested party can try to wriggle out of, usually successfully, even if this is completely unjustified. It is to be welcomed if legislation develops in this respect. The distribution of the burden of proof is an important point which should be looked into by a committee such as the one mentioned above. As such, on behalf of those in my Group who welcome this, I am strongly in favour of the parts of the report which pertain to this point. It is, of course, the case that in the traditional forms of administration of justice, some employers or people playing important roles used to be in a strong position, or those forming part of a majority always took exception to anti-discrimination. Distribution of the burden of proof will affect their position. As a Christian-Democrat, I think we have to side with those who are most under threat, those in the weakest position. As such, this is a positive development, in my view. Also, I very much applaud the rapporteur’s compromise to the effect that she is possibly prepared to reinstate in their original form those regulations which have been tightened up in ways not required by statute. I consider this to be an important gesture, also vis-à-vis the Group of the European People’s Party , and this I very much appreciate. Regarding the other points of the report, I do have to say that the nature of a directive is such that you do not need to be too specific. A directive needs to be incorporated into national legislation. Naturally, one could say, what if some EU government or other lost its faculties, you would need to specify all the steps one by one. I assume, Mr President, pursuant to the principles of subsidiarity, that this kind of mental breakdown will not affect Member States and that they will transpose this directive into national legislation in a proper and reasonable manner, so as to meet the objective. This is, after all, the nature of the directive. This does imply for our Group – and I am speaking on behalf of the entire group – that a number of points are redundant, something which, in fact, the rapporteur has already hinted at. Let us weed them out and exclude them from the directive. In addition, we do not need to include a number of bureaucratic procedures of how everything needs to be done step by step. We will not be voting in favour of this, or rather, we will be voting against this. But this does not affect the core of the report, Mr President, which is what this is all about. Needless to say, there are a number of points which we do want included, such as, for example, the right to perusal of confidential information, or whether it is, for example, necessary to establish whether a business administration is not secretly committing systematic discrimination. On behalf of part of my Group, I also find it extremely important that elections of employees representatives are clearly provided for. Naturally, these too should be held free from discrimination based on race or ethnic origin. We must strike up a social dialogue where this type of issue can be discussed. This very much strengthens the concept of subsidiarity because, where anti-discrimination is concerned, we should start at the basis, the very place where social dialogue is extremely pertinent. Mr President, discrimination, especially based on ethnicity and race, is of great concern to me because it touches the very core of the European Union and European integration. This is what it is all about. We are gathered here, people from different nations and of different origins, and we are working together. This is what the pioneers of the European Union once did and we must translate this now into legislation such as is before us today. As a Dutch person, I have to say that I am also moved by the discrimination issue involving generations of Dutch speakers, often fellow believers, who kept the apartheid regime in South Africa alive. This has made us particularly alert and, in my opinion, we should take the warning we received from this historic learning process seriously. I am delighted that this subject is now being discussed in a proper manner.

Political group: PPE-DE