Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Pirker has addressed an important aspect of the debate now behind us, namely the fact that this was the first time we have held a debate over several months in a political field in which, for as long as I have been here in Parliament, we have only ever become entrenched, which was marked by a willingness all round to compromise and, more importantly, by the ability all round to compromise. So let me say straight away that you, Mr Schmitt, have carried out what I see as an exemplary piece of work. We always extend our ritual thanks to the rapporteur but, in this case, I should like to do so in a special way, by saying that you have astounded all of us sitting on the side of this House. The Secretary-General of the Berlin CDU, an important regional branch of the Christian-Democrat Union in Germany, has quite clearly stated in the report submitted here, and which bears his name, that he is in favour of maintaining the individual’s right to asylum as a fundamental right. As a German Social Democrat, all I can say is well done! Your party leadership in Berlin – I mean the federal, not the local leadership – maintains exactly the opposite, namely that an immigration law is needed and that the individual right to claim protection is therefore no longer needed. Assert yourself in your party. I guarantee that you will have the support of the German Social Democrats, if no-one else. It is clear from what Mr Pirker has said that you have obviously been engaged in real missionary work in your group; but good works deserve to be praised. What we have achieved – and Mr Pirker has indicated that he is ready to vote in favour – is a report which addresses the standards which need to be applied to the asylum procedure so that comparable conditions and requirements for applying for and claiming asylum can be created uniformly throughout the European Union. When we speak of standards, we mean formal processes, procedural processes and we must do our best, in doing so, to guard against loading them with ideological connotations or questions of principle of a long-term, political nature. That is one of the reasons why we are telling our fellow members in the Group of the that we reject all their proposed amendments except one. This one amendment deals with remand pending deportation, which we too feel is an instrument worth examining. I am not judging that. We shall reject your proposed amendments because we need to learn in this Parliament, as legislators, that we should and must deal in the legislative process with the subject matter which needs to inform the law. But here we are talking about the procedural, not the substantive right to asylum. That is something else entirely. The ’ proposed amendments contain a discussion of the content, not the form of asylum law. As you will certainly have noticed, we in the group have not filed any more proposed amendments to plenary; nor do we need to because the Schmitt report as voted by the committee corresponds in a very large measure to what we, as s, have in mind: the fundamental vested right guaranteeing everyone who wishes to use it access to the procedure. It is important to us to have a guarantee of legal support in the procedure in a form which ensures above all – and we consider this to be tremendous progress – that those involved in the procedure are dealt with in a language which they can understand, i.e. that they are given the support they need to understand the procedure, that they can claim legal counsel in every case, that they can appeal to the court against the initial administrative decision and, as the most decisive point for us – I would remind my German fellow members of the debate within Germany – that this appeal has a suspensive effect. That is a huge step forward for us. It also means – and we went into this in considerable detail in our contribution to the debate in committee – that, where the applicant has temporary leave to stay during the appeal procedure, this procedure cannot take years; on the contrary, there must be a fast-track procedure, because the public and the applicant both have a right to swift completion of the procedure. All in all, Mr Schmitt has submitted a report which we in the group of the can support and I am fairly certain that this report will get what it deserves, i.e. a large majority. Mr President, fellow members. A word on a personal note: Today is the last sitting in which I shall act as coordinator of the group of the . I shall soon be devoting myself to different tasks in my group. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to thank all my fellow members, Mr Wiebenga, Mr Pirker, Mr Ceyhun and Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, with whom I have worked so closely in this capacity over recent years, for always cooperating with me so fairly and trustingly. (Applause)

Political group: PSE