Mr President, we have spoken much in recent weeks about the enlargement of the European Union. That enlargement extends our borders to Russia, to Ukraine and Belarus – it is hardly surprising if issues of border control and immigration policy are centre stage. But when it comes to immigration, no country is an island. A real debate is needed at European level, and not the kind of distasteful sloganeering that we suffered at the Seville European Council. As a policy issue, immigration is simple. Unless we open our markets to goods from poorer countries, thus helping their people to prosper, we will take their people. And unless we set our own immigration policy, either anarchy will reign or – more worryingly – criminal gangs of human traffickers will set that policy for us. What a pity that our governments did not listen a little more carefully to the advice of the Canadian Government about how, if we wished to get on top of the trafficking in people, we should open our front door a little to legal migration, in order to close our back door more effectively against illegal migration. I congratulate Commissioner Vitorino on the proposals that he brought forward a couple of years ago at the beginning of this whole debate. I deeply regret that Member States did not adopt them as proposed. The debate has been dominated by the repressive aspects of migration policy and has shown scant regard for its humanitarian aspects. The strategy has hardly been one of small steps as the Commissioners suggested – one of ‘faltering feet’ is perhaps a better description. I had the honour of chairing the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs in this House for the first two years of that discussion. I regret not only the EU’s failure to establish effective and complete policies on immigration and asylum, but also its failure to ensure responsible stewardship of our economy which is intimately linked with immigration. The Commission’s review of the European economy in 2002 shows the devastating economic consequences of stagnating population growth, which could lead to the rate of potential economic growth falling by 1% of GDP per annum for the next 50 years. What should we do? Well, exhortations to procreation have never been known to work. The evidence suggests that the higher our living standards become, the less people will want to have children. So for economic reasons too, we need a mature debate about a policy of managed migration. I hope that this afternoon’s debate will contribute to achieving some joined-up thinking on immigration policy. I have been asked to report on the readmission agreement with Hong Kong. I regret that Parliament has been neither consulted nor kept informed during the negotiations on this readmission agreement, that we find ourselves in the position of having to deliver our opinion after the agreement has been initialled – and, moreover, after the Agriculture Council on 23 December adopted the decision authorising its signing. According to Rule 97 of our Rules of Procedure, throughout the negotiations – and here I quote: ‘The Commission and the Council shall inform the committee responsible regularly and thoroughly of the progress of the negotiations’. I deplore the fact that did not happen, all the more so because this is the first readmission agreement negotiated by the Community. In the case of future agreements, I ask that Parliament be kept informed about the state of negotiations by the Commission and the Council. Readmission is about the return of persons found irregularly on our territory. Few in this House would deny the need for a policy of return. It is an integral part of any credible immigration policy. Effective return safeguards the integrity of asylum policies and of regular immigration programmes and it acts as a deterrent to irregular migration. Return has risen to prominence essentially because of the way in which our over-stretched asylum systems are being used as alternatives to a closed-door immigration policy. When the Council adopted its return action programme at the end of last month, I am sure it took into account the many advantages of assisted voluntary return, as well as the possibility of forced return. The advantage of assisted voluntary return is that it permits return in a non-punitive and a cost-effective way. It has been shown to work in Germany, in the United Kingdom, in the Netherlands and in Belgium. It is more convenient and it is less costly, both financially and politically, than deportation. It has been almost exclusively a European phenomenon and we need more research on the sustainability of return under AVR programmes. But our policy needs to be rational, driven not by prejudice, but by a sober assessment of our needs. It must be carried out by governments who ought to resist the temptation sometimes to deport in order to seek approval from the mob. That policy must also address gender and health issues which are vital in this debate. The readmission agreement on which I have been asked to report is the first readmission agreement that the Community is entering into. I share the Commissioner’s appreciation of the willingness of the Hong Kong authorities to negotiate this with us. There is a danger that today’s debate will be confused with a debate on Hong Kong tomorrow which reflects concern about the implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law. Some may argue that Hong Kong is not a safe country. I accept the assurance given on 10 December by Donald Tsang, Hong Kong’s Chief Secretary, when he gave his personal guarantee about the free flow of information and the freedom of speech remaining essential characteristics of Hong Kong society. Nor have I any doubt that the Hong Kong administration is competent to administer a readmission agreement. Moreover the agreement itself refers to international commitments to the protection of vulnerable persons. However, what concerns me about this agreement is that it is the first in what will be a series of such agreements. Authorisation has already been given for the negotiation of such agreements with many countries – some of them have even been initialled. The fact is that some of those agreements will be far harder than this one. Therefore, I would ask the Commission this afternoon to clarify a number of issues. The first concerns the scale of voluntary and forced repatriation promoted by the Member States, the categories of people involved and their countries of origin. Are the measures that Member States have adopted adequate and effective? Since this House is also very concerned to ensure that the policies of return and the readmission agreements we negotiate respect fundamental rights, I would also ask how the Commission proposes to ensure that the rights of individuals are respected in the event of repatriation, especially if this occurs on a large scale. Is the Commission sure that the readmission agreements it is proposing are compatible with our obligations under international refugee law? Will the Commission commit itself to establishing joint monitoring mechanisms with the countries with which we make readmission agreements? The House would like answers to all these questions. I would also like to know why the European Parliament is never mentioned in the Commission’s communication on a Community return policy. I would like clarification as to which coherent and transparent financial instrument will be used for the return policy in question and readmission agreements in particular. The role of the European Parliament as one arm of the budgetary authority is clearly important in this, and I would be interested to know whether we will, from a financial point of view, need a new legal base for this policy. The human rights clause in the readmission agreement used for Hong Kong is not strong enough to protect us against all eventualities in such agreements with other countries. We should recognise that, while concluding the agreement with Hong Kong was a relatively easy matter, as we were able to offer them visa-free access to the EU in return, cutting a deal with countries such as Russia and Morocco will be not a whit as easy. We will need to provide incentives for many third countries to cooperate with us, rather than threatening them with economic sanctions, as Mr Blair and Mr Aznar proposed in Seville. That is why I welcome the Commission’s recent communication on integrating migration issues into the Union’s external relations policy. If we join up the dots between this paper, our development policy, the negotiations on readmission and our economic need for immigration, we will be demonstrating the joined-up thinking we so urgently require in immigration and asylum policy.

Political group: ELDR