Mr President, we have drafted this report that I am presenting today mindful of the fact that the Commission communication notes the importance that the Union attaches to human rights in the development of its external policy and this, in our opinion, should be warmly welcomed. I should like to emphasise, however, that although this communication puts forward important proposals and suggestions, it does not provide, in our view, practical instruments that will enable us to successfully confront the new challenges resulting from the new vision that we share and in which human rights and their promotion are fully integrated into the Union’s external policy. In theory, there are no substantial differences in the approach adopted by the Union institutions on defining how to address the development of human rights and the consolidation of democracy in the world, but it is when it comes to translating words into deeds, however, that differences between the institutions emerge. All too often, the democratic demands made on our partners take second place to the economic and commercial interests of the Union as a whole and of its individual Member States. Let us add to this another observation, which is in my view even more paradoxical: despite the fact that we share a single doctrine, a number of different policies are in force. Just take the paradigmatic case of Cuba, and I only mention this as one example. The Council is blocking relations, whilst the Member States maintain bilateral relations, in trade and in all types of other fields with the island. Under these circumstances, the aim of this report is not to reiterate the Union’s by now well-known position on this matter, but rather to seek to put forward proposals for firm action, both in the negotiation of agreements of all kinds between the European Union and third states and in the application of these agreements, as well as their possible suspension. The proposals contained in this report are intended to provide the work of the various Community institutions with greater coherence, putting an end to the de facto contradictions and to the particular predominance of the political will of the Council in this field, because in our opinion, the fact that the Union does not have a position of its own, expressed with a single voice, causes us to act on the international stage according to necessity or under the changing leadership of others who do not always share our interests in this field. In drafting this report we have been both ambitious and responsible; we have shown the ambition that committing ourselves to the defence of human rights in the world requires and the responsibility that comes from realising that the challenge of integrating human rights into the Union’s external policy is a genuinely complex matter. We have also borne in mind, however, that the contradictions between institutions and the lack of unanimity, coordination and unity in action are the worst enemy of human rights and of democratisation in the world. The proposals put forward in this report must, therefore, be seen as a means of overcoming this situation and of overcoming our own contradictions. As Mr Patten stated this afternoon in his intervention, we are fond of lecturing others on human rights but we would sometimes do well to look at ourselves. My first proposal is, therefore, to ask the Commission to draw up an interinstitutional code of conduct, designed to ensure a more coherent and more equitable approach in the Union's external action in this field. This code must govern relations between the Union and the more than 120 States to which the democratic clause currently applies. A code, ladies and gentlemen, that will be an instrument for defining the terms, both internal and external, under which dialogue takes place; a code to provide cohesion for the speech and the actions of the Union, but never to undermine dialogue; a code which serves as a political instrument, not a legal or ethical one, which systematically collates the Union’s values and political thought and its rules of implementation. I should like to emphasise that such a code must not be based on the punitive and suspensive nature of the human rights clause, but on mutual respect between the parties concerned, incorporating as many positive incentives as possible and including generous cooperation programmes, that will enable respect for human rights to be strengthened at all levels. Our objectives must be not only to evaluate the progress made by the various partner countries in the field of human rights but also to achieve a coherent balance between countries and regions, above all preventing unfair results, comparative injustices and the treatment of these countries and regions with double standards, all of which we saw in Geneva. The code must, ultimately, be the handbook for parliamentary democracy. The second proposal that this report makes, and which I should like to go into, recommends that the Parliament produced by the 2004 elections should establish a Commission on Human Rights responsible for problems relating to human rights, democratisation in third countries and relations with international organisations active in the sphere of human rights Thirdly and lastly, I should like to mention the proposal for the Commission to establish a European Union Agency for Human Rights and Democracy, a suggestion that was made by the Cologne European Council. This agency, ladies and gentlemen, would be a body whose objective would be to establish common criteria and parameters for analysing the human rights situation in the world, drawing up an annual assessment that will facilitate interinstitutional action in accordance with the elements that constitute the code. It is, of course, the Commission that will have to establish the areas in which the agency will act but it would be very useful, in order to produce more effective and coordinated work, if it could, for example, include the evaluation of the impact of structural measures, given their enormous importance in the processes of reconciliation following armed conflict. Lastly, it will be a useful instrument, that does not take competences away from anyone, but which adds both its own and external efforts and resources. Finally, with regard to the five amendments tabled by Mrs Malmström, I must say that I am not going to accept them and that I am going to ask plenary to vote for the report, which was adopted by a broad majority in committee, with three abstentions and not a single vote against. Nevertheless, I thank both Mrs Malmström and the other honourable Members of all political groups who tabled amendments and who discussed matters with us during the drafting of this report, because their work has helped to enrich it. I should furthermore like to ask Parliament’s services to bear in mind that the original text is in Spanish and to revise the other versions, because there are some differences in the finer points of meaning.

Political group: PSE