Mr President, Mr President-in-Office, Mr President of the Commission, both we in this House and the people of Europe are waiting for the Council in Seville to send out clear, sensible messages on asylum, immigration and the integration of immigrants in Europe. Europe must continue, for ethical reasons, to stand by the principles of a humanitarian asylum policy. We must continue to make our citizens understand that we need immigrants. But we still have to prove to them that we can manage and control immigration and this – as the Spanish Presidency quite rightly maintains – means involving our neighbours, especially the countries from which illegal immigrants come and the countries they pass through. Most importantly, however, we must all join forces in fighting the people who rake in huge profits from trafficking in human beings. Mrs Rosa Díez González spoke of the Spanish Presidency's drum roll. This comment probably applies to us all, given the drum rolls we play all over the place. But if we take a close look at what the European Union as a whole has done to combat trafficking in human beings, then I for one see very little. Some Members of the House recently visited Bucharest with their national counterparts and went to an anti-cross-border crime centre. This centre is supported by a few Member States, it is supported by the Americans, but it does not receive any European funding. Worse still, we are only now just slowly beginning to make contact with Europol or rather Europol is only now just slowly beginning to take any real action here. I think what the citizens of Europe expect is a positive immigration policy that also cracks down on the increase in human trafficking and other criminal activities. We also, however, have to give the people who come to our countries the opportunity to integrate into our society. By carving out a living for themselves – and many are involved in setting up new companies – they increase prosperity for all of us. This is not just a game of heads or tails, with either the immigrants winning or the locals winning, we all stand to gain from a reasonable, targeted immigration and integration policy if we would only just get on with it and put everything Commissioner Vitorino and the Council have proposed into practice. As has already been said, however, we also expect Seville to send out some sort of message about the reform of the Council. As Mr Poettering said, things have gone a bit quiet on this front and there are rumours that no one really wants to do anything about it. However, as the members of the Council themselves know, the Council is in urgent need of reform, especially in its legislative capacity, mainly to make it more efficient and transparent. You only have to compare the openness and accessibility of this House with the situation in the Council. A few concessions at least to transparency and openness would not go amiss and would both serve the Council's interests and enhance acceptance of the European legislative process as a whole in the eyes of the European public. Finally, I should just like to point out that this House and my group are prepared to push ahead with further reform of the European legislative process. In the meantime, as the President of the Commission mentioned, the Commission has tabled a number of proposals in this direction. I should like to thank you and your colleagues, Mr President of the Commission, for adopting many – not all but a great many – of the thoughts and ideas which have emanated from this Chamber. But now, as my colleague has already said – we need to set up an interinstitutional working party and come to an agreement here. And in order to do so, we need the Council on board. Mr President-in-Office, I fail to understand, many of us in this House fail to understand how it is that Prime Minister Aznar made a clear promise, that you made a clear promise in this House and the diplomatic and official representatives of the Spanish Presidency have done nothing about it; they have in fact blocked this working party right down the line. I have to say that, as a Member of Parliament, I wonder what counts. Are the promise and the statement made by the President-in-Office and by you what counts or is official blocking during the course of implementation what counts? Surely the political decision-makers should have the last, clear word.

Political group: PSE