Mr President, asylum policy is particularly difficult, and has many unpleasant aspects. One major aspect is the fact that a large proportion of asylum seekers are ultimately faced with the prospect of return – or even forced return. This is something that always attracts a great deal of attention and arouses emotions amongst the general public. While on the one hand enormous pressure is often exerted on politicians to turn away as many asylum seekers who may not be entirely legitimate as possible, on the other hand people are extraordinarily moved by those who ultimately have to be sent back, sometimes even after many years. We do have to take account of the often highly contradictory emotions of the general public. Besides, voluntary return is not always straightforward, and I have learned that an organisation such as the IOM, for example, at least in the Netherlands, is often very unsuccessful. The number of people who have been organised to return voluntarily to their own country or to their former country is relatively low. The whole of our asylum policy – or at the very least our return policy – must meet the requirements of human dignity in all respects. This is a point to which we must pay much attention, and I am also pleased that we are working on the aspect of return in an orderly fashion in agreements such as the one with Hong Kong and others currently in preparation. It goes without saying, however, that these should include other aspects than just the return clauses. With regard to what has just been said about checking up on what happens to people who have returned, I believe that there are many things that we can do about this in an EU context as well. Governments often say: OK, our embassy will keep in touch with people who are sent back despite the fact that they claim to be in danger in their own countries. Such cases naturally occur in all countries. I am of the opinion that it is important to create a particular specialism in the embassies of the Member States in order to find out whether it is possible, in some cases, to keep in touch with people who have returned so that we can be sure – really sure – that their return was a considered judgment by the person who sent them back. As far as the Hong Kong agreement is concerned, I wholeheartedly endorse what Mr Watson says about it. It is of course a pity that we are being asked for approval at this very late stage. Its legitimacy naturally depends on our approval. We are therefore justifying this approval now. This is in fact a risky reversal of procedures, but I take Mr Vitorino, whose good will has been demonstrated on several occasions in this Parliament, at his word when he says that he will ensure that other opportunities for notifying Parliament about such documents earlier on will be investigated in the future so as to enable us to make a material contribution if possible. As far as the clarity of European policy is concerned, Mr Haarder has already spoken about this. I think that it is very important, particularly from the point of view of human dignity in respect of third countries. If we have a homogenous, or relatively homogenous, asylum policy, one in which we have co-ordinated many different standards, we will be able to provide information on it in third countries so that the people there will know what treatment they can expect everywhere in the European Union. This will give asylum seekers who are really only trying their luck the opportunity not to try their luck, the opportunity not to remain in debt with their families, fellow-villagers or neighbours, but to stay where they are and not risk returning penniless. Finally I have a question about the European Fund for Refugees that was mentioned. Is it possible for the European Fund for Refugees to have a better future, and is it possible for the European Union itself to therefore address itself to the matter of relief in the region to a greater extent?

Political group: PPE-DE