Speeches

Fast and efficient completion of TEN-T connections is a matter of guaranteeing adequate funding and simplifying permitting rules. Efficient implementation of the new regulations can reduce delays in the implementation of infrastructure projects and facilitate the participation of private investors. However, the new acts must not paralyse well-functioning national planning and permit-granting procedures and national institutions, including local and regional authorities. There is no need for EU intervention where states themselves comprehensively regulate the stages of proceedings and activities and additionally take into account specific regional conditions and requirements. The structure of the national authorities and their organisation fall within the competence of the States. Thanks to the revised legal form of the regulation, Member States will have the necessary flexibility to make use of already existing procedures. The EU's approach to TEN-T so far has been oriented towards the development of east-west connections, which has led to delays in the development of connections and the socio-economic development of regions in Eastern Europe. We urgently need to make up for the losses and redirect funds to projects linking Northern and Southern Europe, especially investments in the countries of the Eastern Flank. My regions of Warmia and Mazury and Podlasie are still eligible for the least accessible areas, despite the fact that two TEN-T core corridors run through them. The S7 road is part of the Baltic-Adriatic transport corridor and the S61 road of the North Sea-Baltic corridor.

Madam President, I'm sorry. During this session, we are debating a report on the persecution of religious minorities in the world. This topic is very broad, important and at the same time extremely difficult to enclose in a single document. When working on the original text, my assumption was to develop the most complete picture possible of the situation on different continents, a kind of map of persecution or problems faced by representatives of different faith groups or non-believers. This, of course, required the adoption of a certain methodology and a kind of gradation of problems through the prism of religions most often victims of attacks, which is also connected with the number of followers and countries in which such events are most common. As a result of a very in-depth analysis of many available studies and documents, it seems to me that such a gradation has been achieved. It turned out, which is probably not surprising to anyone, that the most persecuted religious group are Christians. Not far behind them are followers of Islam, and in the third place Judaism. The former were victims of violence in 145 countries. By comparison, according to available sources, non-believers were repressed in 18. I am putting this information in order because, unfortunately, it was deleted in the final version of the report. Most groups, I don't know if because of political correctness or fear that someone might be left out, have decided not to mention any minorities or any countries where this persecution is taking place in their report on the persecution of religious minorities. Unfortunately, this has become the standard for many of the documents in these annual reports on human rights in the world, in which we have not mentioned any countries for years. In my opinion, this weakens Parliament's position very much. Nevertheless, the report that we managed to negotiate together still contains many important points that need to be highlighted. It exhaustively lists, for example, the different forms that persecution can take, points to the plight of women in many countries and stresses that any violence or discrimination on the basis of religion should be met with a strong response from the authorities of the country concerned and the international community. It talks about the destruction of cultural heritage and places of worship in armed conflicts, and even refers to the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide. The report also contains very concrete proposals for the EU institutions on how they should respond to violations of the rights of religious minorities, including by working extensively with governments, churches, faith groups, NGOs and human rights defenders. Guidelines on freedom of religion or belief are also an important instrument and should be periodically assessed and updated in cooperation with all the parties I have just mentioned. Religious persecution should also become an important part of the European Union's national strategies, and our delegations in different parts of the world should pay particular attention to these issues. To sum up, I believe that the report I have submitted fulfils its role, which should be to draw the attention of the EU institutions and the public to the problem of restrictions affecting various faith groups and non-believers and the attacks that they suffer in many places around the world. I regret that it has not been possible to obtain much more precise and specific provisions indicating individual countries and authorities, although in many places in the report it is very easy to read the references to very specific situations from the context. I also know that Members have signed requests for separate votes on several paragraphs and tabled two amendments to the text on the situation of Christians in the world. As rapporteur, I believe that these proposals are valid and I would like to encourage my colleagues to support them. Finally, I would also like to thank shadow rapporteurs from other political groups, advisors and members of the secretariat of the Subcommittee on Human Rights for their cooperation.