Ladies and gentlemen, the conclusions of the Tampere Summit have given new impetus to the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice. With a view to attaining the objectives that were set, a plan of action was drawn up, which provides for its establishment between two and five years after the Amsterdam Treaty enters into force. It is now time for a mid-term review of the progress made on the Tampere agenda, in the light of the Commission’s timetable. The area of security, freedom and justice covers three major aspects: the Community’s asylum and immigration policy, strengthening judicial cooperation and police cooperation. So let us look at the situation regarding each of these three aspects. On the question of asylum and immigration policy and, more specifically, the management of migration flows, under the measures that have been taken, immigration is regarded as a palliative for manpower shortages and as compensation for the demographic imbalances of the states involved, without taking account of the human or social dimension or the consequences of the brain drain. However, surely this Community migration policy calls into question the universal nature of fundamental rights? Is the re-admission policy consistent with international obligations regarding the protection of refugees and the right of asylum? As for the European Observatory on Migration, I have a reservation. Surely we have to admit that first of all we need to reflect on its purpose, its usefulness and the position of the NGOs concerned with migration in this Observatory. Not a single significant measure has been taken to ensure that third-country nationals are treated fairly. As for their political participation and the re-definition of citizenship, this question has been evaded on the pretext of protecting national sovereignty, which comes down to denying the democratic rights of citizens resident in Europe. How does the Commission propose to promote citizenship based on residence as a means of ensuring their rights? Furthermore, what action does the Council propose to take on the directives on reuniting families, on the status of non-Europeans who are long-term residents and on freedom of movement, establishment and work on the territory of the Member States? The Geneva Convention forms the basis of asylum policy. However, the concept of refugee must encompass both the gender aspect and the social aspect. Is the Council prepared to respond to the specific sufferings of women and victims of civil war? Surely the Eurodac system, based on a data bank of fingerprints, presents a risk to asylum seekers? Furthermore, should the Dublin Convention not be reviewed? The competence of a state to examine a file and the decision-making responsibility should be decided on the basis of the asylum seeker’s choice of country of residence rather than by the country of arrival, which is so difficult to decide in a Union that has supposedly abolished borders. The action plans adopted for partnership with third countries are looking more and more like a means of holding back immigration. What is the situation regarding development aid, a corollary to restricting emigration? Has cooperation been reduced to financing extradition? Surely the introduction of administrative police at the points of entry from third countries is a negation of the right to seek asylum? Some progress has been made at civil level, in relation to strengthening judicial cooperation. Several texts have been adopted on judicial powers, the notification of acts, the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and their enforcement, especially in the matrimonial field and in relation to parental responsibility. A proposal for a directive on legal aid is under consideration; it aims to secure better access to justice. The situation is much less promising with regard to reinforcing criminal judicial cooperation: the reservations here are mainly about what constitutes a specific offence. In the legislative field, framework decisions have been taken on protecting the euro against forgeries, money-laundering, combating the trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children. The Council also appears to be preparing to adopt those decisions that concern the fight against terrorism and the European arrest warrant. The slow progress is due mainly to Member States’ resistance to the principle of mutual recognition. The setting up of Eurojust is a real step forward for the citizens; the rights of defendants and the protection of data do, however, need better guarantees. Unfortunately, we find that we are still far from establishing a European public prosecutor’s office or from common legislation and judicial procedures. We find the most marked progress in the field of police cooperation. There are now many areas where the police have to cooperate. The procedures for Europol’s participation in joint investigations, for the keeping of its records and for its cooperation with third countries need to be clearly defined. Surely we urgently need to guarantee better data protection and finally ensure that we have democratic and judicial scrutiny? As for respect for fundamental rights, I believe we need to review the list of safe countries. Turning to the Schengen Information System, and looking ahead to the enlargement of the Union, new questions arise concerning its tasks, its technical capacity and its institutional form. We must not overlook the external dimension of justice and home affairs. The fight against trafficking in human beings and the fight against organised crime are both areas that should be dealt with under the external relations aspect of justice and home affairs. (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: Verts-ALE