Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, behind the incredibly complicated title of the draft directive lies a relatively straightforward problem. What we are dealing with here is the issue of sharing the burden of receiving refugees from civil wars. It is as if the awkwardness of the title in itself makes it clear just how uncomfortable the underlying issue is for Europeans. The way in which Europeans have so far handled the issue of burden sharing can only be described as a complete tragedy. The problem is one that we have been familiar with for many years. We know from painful experience what happens when civil wars break out in an area such as the former Yugoslavia, and people flee in their tens and hundreds of thousands – and, of course, they go wherever they can be sure of being safe from persecution and war. In the past, this has meant especially Austria, but also Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. In the Bosnian war, for example, my country received more than twice as many refugees as all other countries put together. This is the reason why those concerned have been pressing for a solution to this problem for years. But so far this has not been enough to make the Council produce anything more than declarations of solidarity with those receiving refugees. May I remind you of the very unfortunate attempts of Commissioner Vitorino’s predecessor, Mrs Gradin. Those interested might care to take a look at these. This is why I am grateful to you, Mr Vitorino for taking up these problems energetically after Tampere. I would like to add that, unlike the previous agenda item, this is not an initiative by a Member State but an initiative of the Commission and the Commissioner responsible. To that extent, you are also responsible for it. Much as I welcome what you have done in principle, I also have some objections concerning particular details. The issue of burden sharing is tied to one single problem. Will it or will it not be made a rule that all Member States must receive refugees? If, Mr Vitorino, you adhere to the principle known as two-sided voluntary action, meaning that refugees should be able to decide for themselves which Member State they wish to enter, and that Member States should only take in refugees voluntarily, then everything will remain exactly as it is and absolutely nothing will change. The burden of receiving refugees simply cannot be offset by financial contributions. The first thing that has to happen is that Member States should not to be able to back out by making a financial contribution; instead it should be obligatory for all Member States actually to take in refugees according to a certain system. This system would, of course, take into account the absorptive capacity of each country and all other conceivable viewpoints; it would also, of course, ensure that families are not torn apart and also, of course, on a quota basis, take into account the wishes of the refugees themselves. But it must be laid down in writing that every Member State has a duty to make a personal contribution in terms of receiving refugees. This is the first weak point in your draft. Thankfully, this has been corrected by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and I hope that Parliament will go along with the opinion of the Home Affairs Committee. The second point, Mr Vitorino, relates to family reunification. The indeterminate concept of the family that you use cannot be imposed upon all the Member States. Those wishing to permit the entry and residence of all eligible relatives in addition to the core family may do so. Member States cannot, however, be forced to do this; it must be included on an optional basis. This is our second serious objection. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE