Mr President, this is probably one of the thinnest reports which this House has dealt with for a long time, but it is hopefully also the last time I am given such an assignment. If the Socialist Group and the Group so wish, then perhaps even small groups may also be permitted to draw up reports on matters of interest. This report concerns a Portuguese initiative which tackles one of several problem areas in connection with visa policy. Unfortunately, however, this proposal – the Portuguese initiative – will create a number of problems because it does not really tie in with the other Schengen rules. Since, moreover, the situation is such that, in a very short time – in April, if I have understood correctly – the Commission is to come up with an initiative tackling all the problems surrounding the freedom to travel within the territory of the Member States, and since the Commission also shares my concern about the problems which the report will create, I very warmly recommend a vote in favour of my report and, thus, the rejection of the Portuguese initiative in favour of the later initiative to be produced by the Commission. When we deal with these subjects, however, I think it might be a good idea if, once in a while, we were to take stock of what we are actually doing when we take these initiatives, which are, of course, all offshoots of the Schengen Convention and ideas about the ‘area of democracy, freedom and justice’ we talk so much about. The proposals with which we are dealing today and those with which we dealt previously are largely about closing this area of freedom, democracy and justice, which might be said already to be in the process of becoming isolated. We are, of course, well aware that our part of the world will require a labour force in not very many years’ time. We are well aware that several Member States are already facing the fact that we need a significant level of immigration if we wish to maintain a standard of living anything like that which we have at present and if, in addition, we aspire to a secure old age in which others work while we, hopefully, have time to ourselves. That is why it is so incomprehensible that we should continue to keep people out of our area, that we should accept that people will die en route to the EU, that we should be prepared to see the corpses of refugees or of people seeking a better life washed up on the coasts of the EU and that we should prefer to see these people as corpses than as citizens or as useful individuals in our part of the world. This is amazingly difficult to understand. My own country, Denmark, is among the worst. Ministers in positions of responsibility talk about putting refugees on desert islands, and when they talk like that, then the level of debate is as might be expected and anything is suddenly permitted. In my country, the term cultural struggle has acquired a resonance to the effect that all cultures must be combated if they are not Christian. The liberals in my country think that all refugees should be assembled in camps in the world's poorest countries. In the light of this, I am glad that my country is not involved in the common policy on refugees and, as a result, does not have any influence on those policies the EU is drawing up at the moment for, in spite of everything, the situation is a bit better than if Denmark had had any influence. When the Wall came down in 1989, we all believed in a Europe without walls, but we are well on the way to putting walls up. We are not building them between us, we are building them around us. We should be asking how it is possible that we, the richest part of the world, so consistently choose repressive solutions. How can it be believed that an area of democracy, security and justice can be developed when repressive solutions directed against refugees are consistently chosen? (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE