Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, the current five-year term is drawing to a close. As provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam and at the important Tampere Summit for the adoption of measures aimed at the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, a progress review is now due. In my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, I should like to provide an overview of what has been achieved so far, and share with you some thoughts for the future and on how to rise to this ongoing challenge. In general, I feel it is important not to convey a negative impression of progress to date. A good deal has been achieved, despite the fact that much of the progress was due solely to crises such as that of 11 September. It is disappointing too that in the specific area of asylum and immigration it has as yet proved impossible for us to come up with satisfactory solutions. The sovereignty of Member States is directly affected by all measures related to the development of the area of freedom, security and justice. There is therefore a sense in which misgivings and difficulties are understandable. Further to the progress made and in order to sustain it, I propose drawing up a second Tampere programme. The Commissioner’s statement suggests this could be feasible. In addition the House appears to be favourably inclined towards the idea. As I see it, such a programme should be driven by legitimacy, efficiency and solidarity. I shall refer first to the legitimacy of actions taken. In my view, actions must be based solely on the protection and guarantee of the citizens’ rights and freedoms. Parliament therefore has a crucial role to play in this regard. I am inclined to doubt whether these principles really have been the driving force behind all the measures adopted so far. Rather the opposite appears to have been the case. We seem instead to have witnessed an exercise in the protection of the national interests of Member States. Parliament has often been sidelined. On occasion, documents the House needed to take a decision on actually arrived late. I am sorry to say that a long hard look at reality will show my misgivings are justified. For instance, I could point to the minor role played by Parliament in key areas such as the agreement on judicial cooperation with the United States. The programme to combat terrorism and organised crime is another relevant example. In this case, failure to consult Parliament is evidence of lack of transparency in decision-making. The only body that genuinely represents the people of Europe was sidelined. Nonetheless, it is only fair to point out that there is one issue on which Parliament, the Commission and the Council have shown great determination and consensus. I refer to the fight against terrorism. Mr President, I should like to make a further proposal. A day should be set aside to honour the victims of terrorism. 11 September could be an appropriate date for such an international day of remembrance. This is the only way of recognising those who have suffered most from this dreadful scourge. Sadly, terrorist incidents are becoming increasingly common. They represent an attack on the most basic of all human rights, namely the right to life and physical integrity. I trust my suggestion will be taken up. Secondly, careful consideration should be given to the effectiveness of the measures adopted. Clearly, the current decision-making process has resulted in a somewhat schizophrenic situation. Allow me to mention a few examples. Member States launch initiatives that are never carried through and overlap with each other. Processes grind to a halt in Council because of the requirement for unanimity. This is the case for the development of regulations for the asylum process. Most serious of all are the unacceptable delays in transposing Community regulations into the legislation of Member States. The European arrest warrant is a prime example. Hence the importance of the changes contained in the draft European Constitution, aimed at avoiding such situations in the future. Lastly, I would like to refer to solidarity. At present, this is particularly conspicuous by its absence across the majority of Member States. It is abundantly clear that governments are more concerned about internal public opinion or their national budgets than about achieving European objectives. I have no doubt that this is what actually happens in Councils of Ministers when it comes to tackling the serious problems resulting from the proliferation of requests for asylum. The same is true of the problems posed by uncontrolled and sporadic economic migration. Several Member States are having to cope with the tragic consequences of these phenomena. The worst thing about this strategy is that it takes no account of the real state of affairs. In an area of freedom, security and justice, internal borders no longer exist. There can be no point in doggedly defending strictly national positions against other Member States when the effects of policies adopted by certain countries have a direct impact on the remainder. Europe is a common venture. The area under debate is a common venture. We are called on to move forward together. Only then will we reap the benefits together. IN THE CHAIR: MR DIMITRAKOPOULOSVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE