Mr President, the topic of the ARGO proposal is a very interesting one. However, it struck me during the reading of the Commission proposal that the draftsmen had already covered themselves quite well against any kind of resistance that might be expected from the Council. In other words, it is my feeling that, in transferring tasks from the third pillar to the first pillar, too many concessions are already being made to technical devices – or even gimmicks – designed to organise things in such a way that the Council bureaucracies still remain in command, while the powers of the European Parliament and the European Commission remain a mere formality. This is a hesitant attitude which, in my view, befits a Council Secretariat more than a federal government in the making. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties and of European values and, in my opinion, it should fulfil this task in an assertive manner. I, with the help of the Parliamentary committee, have tried to strengthen the Community dimension of the proposal on a variety of scores. We therefore want to give the Commission a boost, especially where the Commission’s right of initiative is concerned. The implementation of ARGO cannot only be a task of national government offices. It is, for example, very odd that in the case of the enormously successful Odysseus, NGOs etc were able to contribute, but not in the case of its successor, ARGO. This is why I value the reinforcement of the Commission’s right of initiative. This must be emphatically underscored for, via the Commission, others too can share in the success of ARGO. In addition, ARGO cannot simply be a case of collaboration by national bureaucracies. It requires Community guidance, so that the intentions of the directives can be monitored as objectively as possible. Once again, the Commission is the guardian of the treaties and of everything it has presented in directives. I was also somewhat annoyed at the way in which both implementation and control are being relinquished, particularly under the pretext of transparency. In my view, transparency hardly ever has anything to do with clubs of officials, but always with representatives of the people. Using the word in another way undermines it completely. That is something we must avoid at all costs. So, on the basis of transparency, we cannot justify monitoring of the procedure by clubs from the national bureaucracies, while the national parliaments and the European Parliament remain outside. I would make particular reference to Article 3, point e). According to normal parliamentary and rule-of-law principles, the key points of the policy should be indicated and drafted by the executive power, the Commission, and should be approved and monitored by the representative of the people, the European Parliament. After all, we also have powers in the field of the budget. The implementation details can then be given shape by means of national recommendations, as suggested in the proposal. Moreover, a clear distribution of tasks and responsibilities is needed to establish who monitors what. In my view, the Commission and the European Parliament should be responsible for the Community aspects, while the national authorities and parliaments should take care of national aspects. Finally, I should like to say something about the EU’s external borders which will very shortly be moved to coincide with the external borders of the underprivileged candidate countries. In my opinion, ARGO should actually think ahead and should do the groundwork for bringing about communitisation, or common responsibility for the external borders, and preferably on time, for these countries will be joining in only a few years’ time. I have also seen an amendment with which we struggle. This is the amendment from liberal quarters, which concerns people who are persecuted, but not by government bodies. In most cases, we only talk about those who are persecuted by their own governments for their political beliefs. I think that this, in general, is only fair. If people are persecuted in their own countries by non-government bodies and they can still live safely elsewhere in the country, then they need not necessarily be brought to Amsterdam. They can simply stay in Turkey or Russia. In addition, we would always argue in favour of regional reception. Accordingly, I do not endorse the amendment tabled by Baroness Ludford which favours reception in the European Union, via asylum legislation, of those who could also be sheltered elsewhere in their own countries, and we set great store by making this clear. Finally, the European Parliament is asking the European Commission to adopt an assertive stance, and I hope that the latter will interpret this as a shot in the arm. Should the Council refuse, there is still time to broadcast the fact at home. IN THE CHAIR: MR PROVANVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE