Mr President, I too would like to thank Mr Valdivielso de Cué and congratulate him on his excellent work. Broadly speaking, his report makes all the points which I, personally, consider important and also those which the Socialists consider important. I should also like to thank Mr Piétrasanta, who has just given us a highly clear and pertinent outline of both the content of this report and the points which we were hoping that he would stress and mention. The points which were missing from the Commission proposal and which were added by Mr Valdivielso de Cué are important ones. Firstly, Mr Valdivielso de Cué added, and I congratulate him on this, a fundamental idea, namely the need to make a real commitment to the Mediterranean by granting this region aid comparable with that granted to the countries of Eastern Europe. The countries of the South, rightly or wrongly, have the impression that they have been rather overlooked, even though everyone knows that the Mediterranean is one of the most sizeable divided regions existing in the world today. The second idea which was restored was the harnessing of financial resources that were adequate to the challenges. Reference was also made to the overall approach defined in Barcelona (and not just, as the Commission thinks, the structural adjustment dimension), the intensification of regional cooperation, particularly South-South relations, the importance of decentralised cooperation (contrary to the wishes of the Commission which would apparently like to do away with it), the maintenance of support for micro-projects, i.e. for NGOs and civil associations and the need to finance initiatives for industrial cooperation, particular for SMEs. Mr Valdivielso de Cué has done excellent work on all these points. I do, however, feel that one fundamental matter, immigration, has not been sufficiently taken into account by this proposal for a regulation. The Commission’s proposal looks at the question of migration from a strictly negative point of view. They make a very serious connection, and I say this weighing my words carefully, drawing a parallel in the very same indent between, on the one hand, the campaign (which I consider to be legitimate and necessary) against illegal immigration and in favour of repatriation and, on the other hand, the fight against drug-trafficking and international crime. This intolerable attitude is an insult to the millions of immigrant workers who contribute to the wealth of Europe. A distinction has been made, as I requested, but it is still insufficient. I believe the time has come to consider a genuine policy of movement between the two sides of the Mediterranean, north and south. Europe must, I feel, today establish a genuine co-development policy related to migratory flows, which should, Mr President, centre on a few simple proposals, such as the framing of aid policies for projects by migrants, devising instruments for channelling the savings of immigrants, the placement of students in training and the placement of young trainees. Voting in favour of the amendment I have tabled would therefore, I feel, be a contribution towards giving immigrants legally resident in Europe the opportunity to be acknowledged as vectors of co-development for their country of origin. Let me, in conclusion, quote Mr Prodi who said that immigration must become a factor in development. Mr Valdivielso’s work has gone some way to achieving this, and I would like to see us go further still.

Political group: PSE