Mr President, it is perhaps more important than ever today to stand up for tolerance and human rights at a time when racism and intolerance are raising their ugly heads and when the winds of xenophobia and anti-Semitism are being felt in ever more European countries. I am proud that, in general, the European Parliament holds its head high when it comes to defending human dignity in the world. Tolerance, respect, democracy and human rights are building blocks of European cooperation, and these values must always be defended. The EU has a good policy in this area but, as many have said, it is far too fuzzy and incoherent. We need a coordinated, credible and consistent strategy that is integrated naturally into the EU’s other activities. That is something we have repeated many times. It is also unfortunate that we have abandoned the tradition of holding a major human rights debate at the part-session in Strasbourg and have instead spread the debate out so that, for example, Mrs Swiebel’s report on human rights in the EU is to be debated much later. That is symptomatic of the fact that, in this area too, our work is incoherent. For quite a few years, Parliament and the Commission have proposed different measures for coordinating policy between the institutions and improving follow-up. Few of these proposals become a reality. They are nonetheless quite pressing, and I cannot understand why it should be so difficult to put them into effect. Mr Van Hecke’s report focuses on terrorism and modern slavery. Slavery and trafficking in human beings, especially children, are terrible problems and they occur, to some extent, in secret. It is truly excellent that these matters are being brought out into the open. Terrorism and human rights are topical subjects too. Especially here in the European Parliament, we have highlighted the fact that the fight against terrorism, which is obviously incredibly important, also raises a number of issues about integrity and legal certainty. The open society must never be weakened by undemocratic methods. We should like to have seen more of these issues addressed in what is otherwise a very good report supported by the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. We agree entirely with the philosophy and the intentions behind Mrs Díez González’ report. We have doubts, however, about some of the proposals made in it, for example that concerning the new interinstitutional code. Certainly, this is extremely praiseworthy, but we wonder how it relates to the demands we are already making. Shall we ever be able to cooperate with anyone if all these demands have to be fulfilled? We believe in dialogue and, now already, we are making demands, for example in Article Two of the Association Agreement, which are not being fulfilled. Should we in that case be adding more hoops that have to be passed through? We also have our doubts about setting up a new human rights agency. What is such a bureau meant to do? What mandate is it to have? A single committee for citizens’ and human rights is, however, an excellent idea that we support. Human dignity is still violated in the most odious ways throughout the world. The EU can play an important role when it comes to defending human rights. We need increased coordination, improved assessment and follow-up and better documentation for analysis purposes, however. We must speak with one voice. Only then can the EU obtain real influence.

Political group: ELDR