Mr President, this report builds on previous excellent work in the European Parliament and other EU institutions. Its starting point is the European Year Against Racism 1997 but the context has moved on significantly. I very much welcome the positioning of the fight against race discrimination firmly in a human rights context by placing it in this joint debate because that is very much the approach taken in this report. The first theme highlighted is that in the last year we have established two facts in law and in practice. The first is the legal competence of the European Union to fight racism. The second is the fact that race discrimination is a breach of a fundamental right and European Union law. This is reflected in the confirmation through the accession process, not least the Commission communication on which Mr Belder has reported, and I congratulate him, that respect for racial equality and minority rights falls within the Copenhagen criteria. Could I just say as an aside that the amendments to Mr Belder’s report amplify rather than conflict with his report and were tabled because, unfortunately, the Citizens Rights Committee opinion was not voted on in the Foreign Affairs Committee. The second theme emphasised in my report is to positively welcome diversity as a source of social vitality, economic prosperity and international influence. European identity is not a homogenous white culture and it can, and must, expand to encompass the experience and culture of minority communities. Thirdly my report notes that racial prejudice and discrimination poisons our whole society, including for white people. Surveys show that racism has increased and there is an increase in racist violence and support for extremist parties. On the other hand there is also progress, however bumpy, and some regions and cities in Europe are becoming at ease with a multi-racial and multi-cultural way of life. I would cite London, which I represent, as the multi-racial capital of Europe. Certainly I believe we need to talk a lot about racism and diversity and identity, not sideline the issues or talk in code. Some may find the language in my report blunt and it is certainly intended to be clear and unambiguous. This report stresses a rights-based approach and particularly welcomes the prospect of EU anti-discrimination legislation based on Article 13 and other legal measures such as enhanced rights for third country nationals. But that cannot be the end of the story and there are measures proposed in the field of education, media and politics, and justice in policing, immigration and asylum policy, which would be aimed to back up the implementation of legislation. Could I just address three aspects which I understand caused some difficulty for some Members of the EPP-ED Group. The first is the mention of Austria and the entry of Haider’s party into government and recalling the Parliament’s decision in February. I have to say that it would be perverse to discuss the European Union’s strengthened response to racism without referring to recent developments which have been a landmark in establishing that the European Union is a community of values based on respect for human rights. The second area where there are apparently EPP-ED hesitations is regarding enhanced rights for legally resident third country nationals of which there are around 20 million in the Union. My understanding is that there is nothing in this report that the EPP has not been able to accept in the past. The third area which I understand creates some problems for the EPP-ED Group is the belief that this report breaches subsidiarity by mentioning matters like education and policing. But as I said in opening, the combination of Articles 6 and 7, Article 13 and Article 29 of the Treaties have established that the combating of race discrimination is an objective and a competence of the European Union including the area of policing. There are a few of the EPP-ED amendments which I can accept although it is perhaps a pity that they did not make more input at committee stage. Could I appeal to Members of that group to deal with their points of disagreement by making explanations of vote. I believe this report will get majority support here in plenary. It was adopted by a large majority in committee and some of the supporters of the Conservatives and may not appreciate their failure to be part of that majority. Could I just finally say that I can accept some of the amendments from the Green Group and the GUE, particularly the one which I welcome to replace the term “holocaust” by “Shoah”. There is some confusion from the GUE Group about the purpose of ethnic monitoring which is simply to collect statistics on the progress of ethnic minorities so as to be a basis for future policy. It is not in order to identify discrimination and I hope they will understand if I reject their amendments on that. I hope very much that the report will get a large majority when it is voted on later.

Political group: ELDR