Mr President, it is certainly necessary to improve the workings of the Dublin Convention and to transpose it into European Community law, with European Court and Parliament oversight. We must stop the problem of refugees 'in orbit'. Asylum seekers are not parcels to be passed around: they are real human beings who may or may not be entitled to humanitarian protection but, in any case, need to be treated with respect and dignity. Most will be exhausted, many disorientated, frightened or frail. It bears repeating time after time that the chief responsibilities of Member States are to process asylum claims expeditiously, to rapidly integrate those who are accepted and to remove those who are not. This does not mean cutting corners since cases decided sloppily or unfairly risk taking longer in the end because of appeals. This is not, in turn, to challenge the right of claimants to make appeals. One of my group's amendments would make appeals have suspensive effect. If they do not, and the claimant is transferred, they will not be able to keep in contact with the procedure or their lawyer, which is unfair. My Group also aims to further strengthen the provisions on family unity. One of our amendments would give greater rights of reunion to unmarried, including same-sex, couples. We are also sympathetic to the amendment from the Green Group, although I fear that this has less chance than ours. There must be further progress by a convergence of family law developments at national level, and EU immigration and free movement rules, in recognising unmarried partners as family, especially, but not only, those in registered partnerships. I very much hope the Socialist Group will support the very reasonable position. I understand the motivation of those wanting individual choice of the applicant to be the determinant of where an asylum claim is processed, rather than the State responsible for entry. But, alas, it cannot be feasible until there is a fully functioning common asylum and immigration system in which there are no artificial distortions influencing that choice. It also confuses asylum with immigration. The asylum system is based on urgently needing protection. If it is determined exclusively by choice of destination, we risk ultimately undermining its integrity. This new proposal has a clause which would oblige a Member State to take responsibility where it had knowingly tolerated people illegally on its territory for at least two months. This would cover the Sangatte Centre near Calais. I urge the French Government to recognise the logic and imperative of this, though I understand they are resisting it in the Council. We are going to have to face up sooner rather than later to the need to have an immigration route as well as an asylum route into the EU, as well as tackling the traffickers. But the situation at Sangatte cannot be allowed to fester. The Centre cannot be closed: that would be inhumane and just displace the problem. But it is disruptive and dangerous and the UK needs to recognise that this is its problem too. There must be a bilateral solution, urgently required, supported by the new Dublin II but reached through pragmatic bilateral agreement.

Political group: ELDR