Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking everyone who has contributed to this work and helped to improve it. Since the Charter of Fundamental Rights was adopted, it has been the European Parliament’s frame of reference when drawing up its annual report on fundamental rights, a report which is an essential part of our parliamentary life. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is effectively seen as a definitive set of guidelines. For 2003, however, we have taken a slightly different approach, looking at only a few articles of the Charter and comparing them with what we find in reality and practice. The first question we might ask is why is the European Parliament interested in fundamental rights? Well, my answer is that this House is the expression of the people’s sovereignty and it is therefore bound to speak out on matters directly affecting the citizens, especially where their dignity is concerned, since its main role is to represent them and to defend their interests. Public freedoms and fundamental rights are enshrined in our constitutions and in our national and European laws. The draft European Constitution even includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights in its preamble. The European Parliament’s legitimacy in matters relating to fundamental rights has been strengthened by Article 7. It may, on the basis of a reasoned proposal, formally notify the Council where there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6. In this respect, this report should strengthen the European Parliament’s capacity to carry out its role in monitoring fundamental rights within the EU. This is the fourth report. As you know, the report is written by a different political group every year. This year, I had the pleasure of preparing it. In this report, we have tried to gauge the effectiveness of the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to gauge their effectiveness in respect of all individuals, irrespective of gender, ethnic or cultural origin, sexual orientation, religion, handicap or status. Since 11 September 2001 in particular, we have seen an enormous number of measures taken at both EU and national level to combat terrorism, transnational crime and illegal immigration. Today, in the name of EU security, limits are being imposed on our public freedoms and fundamental rights. Many measures are directly or indirectly affecting a number of vulnerable groups and social movements. However justified the fight against crime, insecurity and terrorism may be, it should under no circumstances be allowed to undermine fundamental rights and democratic freedoms since this would threaten the very foundations of the European Union. We have therefore chosen to take as the report’s underlying theme the criminalisation of social movements and vulnerable groups. Target groups which we have identified include trade unions, support and human rights groups, migrants and refugees, victims of trafficking in human beings, Roma and gypsies, journalists, women, children and people with impaired mobility. My attention has been drawn to three points in particular, which I would like to outline to you briefly. So far as the freedom of the press is concerned, the existence of free pluralist media strengthens the principle of democracy. On the question of media pluralism, we have just put to the vote a report by Mrs Boogerd-Quaak on the risks of the violation thereof in the European Union and especially in Italy. I will not therefore go over the matter again, but I would like to remind you that her report refers to the provision of information to EU citizens and the duty of the media and institutions to respect the citizen’s right to be fully and objectively informed. The right to objective information is vulnerable to that information being politically manipulated. Unfortunately, we saw some examples of this in the United Kingdom at the time of the Iraq war and in France during the heat wave. The report shows, for example, that some governments have a virtual monopoly and that in some countries television, the private sector or the press are highly concentrated. The freedom of the press and unfortunately often our rights, too, are threatened by this very concentration of the media and the pressure that some journalists find themselves under when providing their information, because of their political or ideological affiliation. The directive will therefore have to be amended to require Member States to preserve media pluralism and strengthen the protection of confidential sources. I turn now to the right of asylum. Europe’s humanist tradition of asylum rights is being replaced by a closed-border security policy. Laws are not yet harmonised, a variety of national laws are often used to restrict the right of asylum and the treatment meted out in detention centres and living conditions in them are far from ideal. We must of course be able to guarantee the right to health and to ensure that all citizens enjoy that right. All rights of this nature are linked to citizenship and we are well aware that European citizenship cannot be built without these rights in today’s Europe. I am therefore asking you to be particularly vigilant to ensure that our rights, which are increasingly threatened, remain the only things that govern our policies. Finally, if the European Union is to be credible, if it is itself to respect rights and be respected, it must put its own house in order and not be afraid to respond and take action when violations occur.

Political group: Verts-ALE