Mr President, the timeliness of this debate is beyond dispute. The recent rise of anti-immigrant sentiment in France and the Netherlands shows what happens when governments fail to respond to the challenge of immigration. We know that, quite apart from the valuable contribution which immigrants bring to our societies in terms of increased cultural diversity, there are sound economic reasons for a policy of managed immigration, such as meeting labour shortages and funding our creaking pension systems. Indeed, our prosperity will depend on immigration. The question therefore is: what policy should we adopt to make immigration politically acceptable? What we must not do, as too many governments have done, is to bury our heads in the sand and refuse to address the challenge. It is in large part the failure of EU governments to police our borders, to tackle discrimination and xenophobia, and to integrate immigrants harmoniously into our societies that has led to this impasse. No wonder public concern continues to grow. The Liberal Democrat approach would be to open the front door a little, by providing legal avenues for immigration, in order better to close the back door to illegal immigration. This approach has been successfully pioneered by the Canadian Government, and is reflected in the European Commission's proposals for a common immigration policy. It is one we would do well to consider. A policy of managed legal immigration, co-ordinated among Member States, does not mean a free-for-all. Incentives to immigrants to settle more evenly across their host countries would help. A policy which balances rights and duties, so that those newly arriving understand that they can work in their host country and enjoy free movement in the Union and other benefits of EU citizenship, would be helpful too. But they must also understand the need to make an effort to integrate and to live by the rules of the society they join. It is nonsensical political correctness to dismiss any requirement that immigrants should learn the language of their host country. Moreover, proper support for integration must be provided and we must combat discrimination and racism wherever it is found. In this regard, I would pay tribute to the work of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, and I commend to political parties the Charter of Political Parties for a non-racist society. We also need to invest more in our justice systems and the enforcement of legal judgments – we can only expect immigrants to respect core values if we too ensure that these values are respected fully by existing society. A policy of managed immigration requires tough action to control the Union's external borders and I therefore congratulate the Commission for its initiative on a common border guard corps. We also need to do more to help the poor and dispossessed, as the Commissioner said, in their countries of origin, so that they do not have to resort in desperation to criminal gangs of people-smugglers. Most people do not want to up sticks and move elsewhere, so helping to relieve the pressure of illegal immigration is yet another argument, if one were needed, for promoting global free trade and making progress towards the UN target of 0.7% of GDP for development aid. As far as asylum policy is concerned, here again the Liberal Democrat Group is broadly supportive of the Commission's proposals and often sceptical of actions proposed in Council. In conclusion, we believe that there is both a moral and an economic case for managed immigration and a humanitarian approach to asylum. We in the Group will support the Commission in its efforts to move the Union towards the common policies foreseen in the Amsterdam Treaty. For in the words of that great Liberal J.K. Galbraith: 'Migration is the oldest action against poverty. What is the perversity in the human soul that causes people to resist so obvious a good?'. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR