Mr President, when I left the House of Commons in the United Kingdom in 1997 I thought I had got away from debates that took place after 10 p.m. It is very comforting, however, to see that we are able to debate matters of great importance later in the evening. I am also interested to note that in the United Kingdom debates now seem to have been truncated into times that are well before 10 p.m. The balance of power, in that sense, has certainly shifted. I was privileged to be an immigration minister in the last government. It is important for me to emphasise straight away that the EPP is in agreement with the aim of the French initiative. It is vitally important to curb illegal immigration and to deal with the criminals who are exploiting poor people to their own advantage, both financially and in other ways. However, sadly, as shadow rapporteur I am unable to speak in support of many of Mr Ceyhun's amendments, as I believe that these do not actually address the issue but could on the contrary have the effect of exacerbating it. In particular, it seems to me difficult to try to decriminalise the facilitation of illegal immigration for some groups rather than others. The notion that those acting with humanitarian intentions should be immune from prosecution is very problematic and certainly subjective. I, as a lawyer, also have to question why the law should apply to some and not to others. The humanitarian motives referred to in many of the amendments of Mr Ceyhun are, again, very difficult to define or to interpret in a fair and proper manner in a court of law. This does not imply that humanitarian organisations should refrain from aiding such people after their proper entry into a Member State – I would very much support that continuing, and certainly being a feature in future – but rather that they have no more right to participate in any illegal act, in our view, than anyone else. In this context it also has to be stressed that illegal immigrants whose entry is assisted by traffickers should surely be no more immune to prosecution than other illegal immigrants. Of course there is a difficulty with the implementation of a common immigration and asylum policy. I, as a British Conservative, have doubts about that. But tonight I am perfectly happy that we should look at it in the context of how it will develop. We are not yet ready. We do not yet have that policy in place. Given that such a policy may be implemented, this report appears at an inopportune moment. It is imperative that the parameters of the common immigration and asylum policy should be established before any inner standards – such as those addressed in this report – are set. Improving the legal status of refugees, as stated in Amendment No 2, is not, to my knowledge, part of any common immigration and asylum policy. As regards compensatory payments, the rapporteur does not detail how the money would be spent. An increase in the EU budget surely requires more justification than is shown. It is always important to distinguish between asylum and immigration: those are two separate issues, the latter of which is covered by the 1951 Geneva Convention. Amendments underlining the importance of that convention are certainly welcomed by me and the EPP. We support the French initiative. We merely regret that this report has appeared before its time and is unacceptable.

Political group: PPE-DE