President. – The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0091/2000) by Mrs Frahm, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision creating a European Refugee Fund [COM(1999) 686 – C5-0120/2000 – 1999/0274(CNS)].

  Frahm (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (DA) Mr President, because of its wealth, Western Europe is naturally a magnet for everyone seeking protection and fleeing persecution. Our share in the task arising from a growing influx of refugees must, of course, correspond in scope and importance to our prosperity and to our global and historical role. But encounters between people from different cultures are not always simple, and they should therefore be helped along, just as refugees should be given support to begin new lives in their new locations. The Member States each tackle these matters in very different ways, and rightly so, because they each start from perspectives within their different cultures and traditions. However, all refugees have some basic needs in common, and special groups need professional help and support so that they can again start to live lives appropriate to human beings. What is more, they need advice and guidance from the authorities in their new countries and in connection with their actual seeking of asylum.

All refugees begin with a dream of returning home. For some, this becomes a reality but, for others, the period in exile proves to be so long that returning home is unrealistic. They acquire children and friends and a new life for themselves. The children put down roots in the new country, and these become stronger than their parents’ roots in the old country. Therefore, a number of them choose in the end perhaps to apply for citizenship in the new country. A number of surveys show, however, that, even for those who achieve their dream of returning home, it is very important that the period in exile should have been meaningful, that they should have had the opportunity to grow as people and that their qualifications should have been used so that they do not cease to develop as people and are not hindered from developing professionally in their own fields by stagnation, passivity, uncertainty and lack of qualifications. Integration and repatriation are not, therefore, opposed to each other, and integration is not only for people who wish to move country for good. It is also of significant help to those who subsequently return home. It may, in fact, prove to be a prerequisite of successful repatriation. I do not, therefore, understand why some people want to distinguish between displaced persons and refugees.

Responsibilities in Europe are unfairly distributed in relation both to the Member States’ size and prosperity. The European Refugee Fund is a first and very modest attempt to distribute resources in proportion to the tasks which individual Member States promise to undertake. It is not a question of the ratio between the number of refugees and the number of existing citizens. It is a question of the actual task which is to be undertaken. It is not about relative numbers, but actual numbers. I think that some of the amendments from the Group of the European People’s Party and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party must be based upon a misunderstanding in this area. I hope the discussion may make it a little clearer what the thinking here is. But because the task is a considerable one and because it has been unfairly distributed, it is naturally sad that the fund in question should be so small. We are talking about EUR 26 million to cover the fixed expenses of the current work, distributed among 15 Member States. Not much is, in fact, being given to those Member States which really have taken a considerable degree of responsibility upon themselves. By German or Italian reckoning, the amount must seem tiny. In addition, there is, of course, some uncertainty about the fund’s financial future. I am very anxious to know whether the Commission has some good news for us and whether it has given the necessary consideration to the issue in question so that the Fund will have a future and not just become a nonsense over the next few years. All in all, however, the European Refugee Fund is, in fact, to be regarded as a start. And if it has a good beginning and if we are able to follow up the issue, then it will only be natural for us to increase the amount concerned so that the Fund really can live up to its name as the European Refugee Fund.

  Buitenweg (Verts/ALE), draftsperson of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (NL) Mr President, I would like to warmly congratulate the rapporteur on her report and would also like to thank her for the cooperation I have received in my capacity as draftsperson of the opinion.

I was very excited when I read the Commission’s proposal. The Commission is obviously on the right track. It is important that the financial responsibility for refugees be distributed among Member States. This is far better than shifting people around and, in this way, it is possible to end the vicious circle of Member States passing the buck, something which they have become familiar with through the international Treaties.

However, the Committee on Budgets is raising two objections. Firstly, no consideration is given to the Financial Regulation. Indeed, the programme is multiannual, whilst the financial calculations have only been made for one year. The second objection is more extensive. The financial scheme of setting aside 26 million for structural measures whilst keeping ten million in reserve for contingency measures could never lead to the goal which the Commission has in mind, namely an actual spreading of the financial responsibility. The Member States will, however, need to set up all kinds of structures and procedures in order to share out the money.

In this way, solidarity among Member States and solidarity with those seeking protection threatens to be encumbered by a disproportionately high administrative burden. The Committee on Budgets therefore suggests that the present proposal with the amounts quoted could be considered as an experiment, a very commendable experiment at that. But a real European Refugee Fund will cost a great deal more than that. It will need to be investigated exactly how much more this would cost, and the Committee on Budgets has decided unanimously that we expect the outcome of this investigation before 31 March 2001.

The Commission is on the right track. We should not, therefore, get distracted by restrictions upon the financial perspective as long as the net result is to be positive.

  Lambert (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, firstly, I too should like to thank Mrs Frahm for her work and willingness to support a number of amendments, both from the committee and from myself. This has all too often been a very rushed process which has not allowed those of us involved to collaborate as we would have wished to find the best solutions to certain problems. I would particularly cite the example of the allocation of the funding which does not even meet the Commission's intention to give particular consideration to the Cohesion Fund countries. So the proposed review process becomes essential.

Asylum-seekers are not a burden but a responsibility. The European Union Member States are the chosen destination of comparatively few, compared with the world's poor countries such as those in Africa. A proposed amendment from our committee requires that all measures under this fund should be based on an approach designed to prevent any outbreak of xenophobia, racism, discrimination or inequality. That is particularly important, especially given recent criticism by the UNHCR of certain parties in my own Member State for their encouragement of such negative views or their failure to challenge them – criticism which is fully justified in my view.

A change to the funding proposed by our committee aims to give a minimum to each state, which could be used to promote public awareness. My committee feels that the money, inadequate at the moment, should be used to improve the facilities and services offered, which is why we also want to see an overall strategy for the development of services, with a view to refugees and displaced persons being able to play a fully active role in society as equals. Not to take such an approach would be short-sighted, as others have already pointed out.

The committee also proposed that there should be greater partnership at Member State level in determining and evaluating how the money should be used, including the involvement of refugee organisations themselves. We also want it to be a duty for the committee assisting the Commission to consult with other organisations. How we deal with the dispossessed is an issue for society as a whole, not just for governments.

  Oostlander (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, my Group is highly delighted with the proposal to set up a European Refugee Fund and also with the way in which Mrs Frahm has tackled this problem in her role as rapporteur. The asylum policy urgently needs a European approach. We do not wish to see a downward spiral where Member States compete in making their own country look unattractive, the way the Netherlands did, for example, when it appeared on CNN with leaking tents in which refugees could be received. As Europeans, we do not want that sort of policy. We most certainly do not want one country to shift its responsibility to another.

Setting up this fund is therefore a step in the right direction. It provisionally brings the desired solidarity within the European Union symbolically into focus. It is only right that the countries which do a great deal per capita of the population should be the first to receive financial support. This is also the thrust of the amendment tabled by my Group. Subsequently, the aid figures will need to correlate with the absolute numbers. I suggest including these two values in an algebraic formula, a task which I pass on to the officials with pleasure. Needless to say, the values will depend on the influx of asylum seekers in each country, the number of people granted refugee status, obviously in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and the number of displaced persons received.

The tasks supported by the fund are covered in the proposal and by the rapporteur. We are extremely pleased with the broad support for our concept of tailor-made solutions. As Mrs Frahm mentioned a moment ago, the tailor-made aspect refers to the difference between those who have attained refugee status as individuals and those who are benefiting from temporary protection as displaced persons who have been driven out on a massive scale. Individual refugees gain from a dynamic approach to their integration in all kinds of areas within the European Union, such as permanent jobs, housing, the settling of whole families etc.

Displaced persons, on the other hand, have been driven out en masse and against their will and want to return to their home country. For them, it is important to optimise their chance of repatriation with dignity. In order to achieve this, they need to maintain their own social networks and they need activities which will strengthen their prospects in their country of origin upon their return and, of course, they need to be able to maintain their self-respect.

In this respect, Amendment No 19 deals with refugees, while Amendment No 21 focuses on displaced persons. We should really spell this out a little more clearly.

In my opinion – and this is my personal opinion – integration should also include the recognition of the religions of the new minorities. This is why my Amendment No 20, which I supported on my own in committee, has mysteriously found its way back into the report, thus affording Members who wish to prove their broad-mindedness in this respect the final opportunity, in one way or another, to include this amendment in the report.

I have been informed that the European Commission is carrying out a comparative study into the asylum policy of the Member States. I am very curious to see whether this report will be published before long. It could, in itself, contribute towards the common policy based on best practices. It is also vital that this report is made available as soon as possible. This week, for example, in the Dutch Lower Chamber – and undoubtedly elsewhere – an asylum policy is again being discussed which is drafted in such a way as to be completely out of tune with everything that is happening in the EU Member States. This seems very bad policy on the part of the Netherlands. However, perhaps this is also happening elsewhere. In my opinion, the Commission should keep its finger on the pulse, in a tactful manner, of course, but a finger on the pulse nonetheless.

It makes sense that the fund should mainly focus on improving the procedures, but at least as interesting is the Community’s approach to the phenomenon of displaced persons. After all, this is a category which– more than anything – is typified by the need for security, without choosing a particular EU Member State as such.

We are also in favour of EU aid being earmarked for a common follow-up scheme which monitors the experiences of repatriates and which also offers a certain level of guarantee. It goes without saying that we, as Christian Democrats, welcome the efforts of private organisations and those of refugees and displaced persons themselves with open arms.

On behalf of my Group, I wish this new type of Structural Fund, because this is what it comes down to, every success. I also want to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, on the handling of this important topic and I hope that she will accept my efforts in the field of tailor-made solutions for what they mean as regards, on the one hand, refugees and, on the other, displaced persons.

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President

  Keßler (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, my Group welcomes this proposal. It is important that this instrument should remain in force for the entire five-year period and that the core elements of a common asylum system should be codified within this period. The Fund should help to balance up the differences between Member States in the acceptance and integration of persons in need of protection. A precondition for this is that the various factors must be given due consideration in allocating the money. It is necessary that the legal basis for the Fund should be adopted as soon as possible so as to ensure continuous EU financing of refugee projects.

I welcome the fact that, under Article 5, the money for routine projects is to be separated from emergency aid measures. Mass refugee situations require special measures and separate budgetary allocations. Only in this way can routine long-term measures also be maintained. The effective distribution of responsibilities which the Fund is striving for can only be achieved in the long term if the existing problems of widely divergent capacities are tackled. This requires additional support for the Member States with a less well established asylum system. I therefore consider that a fixed sum for the Member States which are experiencing difficulties in establishing their asylum system is advisable.

The description in Article 3 of the tasks and measures which are worthy of promotion could lead to a priori support for measures to improve the acceptance conditions for asylum seekers, but this should not mean that measures necessary for fairer and more effective asylum procedures are neglected.

I am of the opinion that the Fund should finance measures to inform the public concerning the policy and practice of the Member States with regard to refugees, asylum seekers and other temporarily protected persons. The positive results of such activities in the past speak in favour of the continuation of such financial support, which should be made available to every eligible applicant.

I congratulate Mrs Frahm on her excellent report and gladly support the request of Mrs Frahm and Mrs Buitenweg for the addition of this sum to the Refugee Fund.

  Haarder (ELDR). – (DA) Mr President, in Denmark, Pernille Frahm and her party have led the way in the struggle against what they call “more Union”. They campaigned against Denmark’s joining the single currency, which we are to vote on in September, and they have been on the “no” side in four out of the five previous Danish referenda. That is why I am so pleased to read Pernille Frahm’s report in which she does not merely approve, but also requests, “more Union” in the form of mutual aid in connection with the burden which the influx of refugees imposes upon us. To cap it all, she wants more money transferred from the national Refugee Councils to their EU equivalent. I agree. If a large number of Albanian refugees arrives in Italy or a large number of Baltic refugees in Scandinavia, it is more sensible to spread the cost over the whole Union than compulsorily to distribute the refugees throughout the Union. The Refugee Fund makes it possible to help more refugees in the vicinity of their own countries where they can maintain links with their families and native cultures and continue to put pressure upon the tyrants who drove them from their homes. It is, therefore, also a good thing that the EU should be able to come up with aid in support of large influxes of refugees. We saw the need during the war in Kosovo. Just imagine if a great many more Kosovars could have been helped in neighbouring Macedonia and Albania. They would have much preferred this than to have been sent thousands of kilometres away to distant countries. If there are any who stand united on this issue, they are Pernille Frahm’s and my own party. If we could make Pernille Frahm rapporteur for European cooperation, too, then I am sure that we could agree about that issue as well.

  Boumediène-Thiery (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great relief that we welcomed the proposed Council decision on the creation of a European Refugee Fund. After Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan, to cite but a few of the tragedies which bathe our planet in blood, creating such a body is an increasingly urgent matter. The report shows the extent to which parliamentary activity can be beneficial to Europe. We therefore support these motions.

We shall here mention only three points. Firstly, if there is one point on which the report is not satisfactory, it is financial resources. Very few resources are allocated to the Fund, considering the scale of its activities – improving reception conditions, integrating persons benefiting from international protection, encouraging voluntary return by facilitating reintegration in the country of origin. These are huge tasks requiring amounts far greater than those initially planned. We must provide ourselves with the resources to realise our shared ambitions, and make Europe a land of solidarity and hospitality, which respects human dignity and the values which are the reasons for thousands of people to seek asylum, particularly freedom of democratic expression and peace.

Secondly, improving reception conditions should also include providing access to health care for all, the provision of education for children, and also training. Already made rootless by virtue of their exile, families must be able to benefit from education for their children and training programmes for young people in order to regain some stability, to promote their social and economic integration, and to encourage their possible return to their own country.

Thirdly, many of us are calling for NGOs and the associations working on a day-to-day basis with refugees to be consulted, both in defining the necessary programmes and in their implementation. It would be a serious mistake to exclude the very women and men who often, with their invaluable experience, make good the omissions of the State, from the process.

Finally, in conclusion, I should like once again to stress the ever more insistent need for Member States to arrive quickly at common legislation in matters of asylum. It is only this advance which will make it possible to allow this European Fund to make a proper impact.

  Camre (UEN). – (DA) Mr President, allow me first of all to emphasise that, in the referendum on the Edinburgh Agreement in 1993, the Danish people declined to participate in EU cooperation on legal issues, and Denmark is not, therefore, bound by any legal obligations to allow the EU to decide which refugees are to be received by Denmark. And one cannot in all decency receive money from the EU if one will not also allow the EU to decide which refugees are to be allocated to which countries. I think it is the individual countries’ responsibility to finance their refugee policies themselves and, for that reason alone, I have to vote against this report. On Danish television, representatives of the High Commission for Refugees in Geneva have expressed the view that only one in ten asylum seekers are genuine applicants. If, as in Denmark, the majority of applicants are given asylum or residence permits, then legitimate refugees are left in the lurch. Denmark offers the world’s highest level of financial aid to refugees and therefore attracts many who are merely economic refugees. And that is not what the Convention on Refugees is about. I nonetheless agree with Mrs Frahm about one thing, namely that EUR 26 million is far, far too low a level. In Denmark alone, the level of aid is EUR 2 billion per year so that the present little fund is of absolutely no effect. We therefore think we need to manage the whole issue of apportioning and prioritising our efforts concerning refugees in a far more rational way.

  Pirker (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are many reasons why, in principle, I welcome what the Commission has submitted: firstly, because the Commission is sending a signal to the Member States that they are not alone in the problems of migration, refugees and displaced persons; secondly, because it at least regulates in part the distribution of the burden; and, thirdly, because the Commission is proposing a differentiated package of responsibilities for two different groups, namely recognised refugees and displaced persons, i.e. persons temporarily seeking protection. I welcome the proposal because it clearly defines the target groups, because the acceptance conditions will be improved and the integration of refugees supported, and because the re-integration of temporary refugees will be promoted.

However, I do not share the view that Mrs Frahm’s report can be accepted almost without criticism because I consider that measures which go beyond these defined responsibilities are inappropriate. Firstly, the money is not available and, secondly, there are other totally different groups which have a claim to it if you are talking here about groups which are particularly in need of protection, and we are unquestionably talking about persons within the meaning of the Geneva Convention.

I also do not support your proposals for measures which are incompatible with the particular groups. When it comes to refugees, the measures should be different to those for displaced persons. You cannot, in the case of displaced persons whose main concern is to return to their homeland, require that the host country integrate them into the labour market. That contradicts the basic intention.

However, we must seek to make an amendment when it comes to the allocation of funds, taking the number of refugees or displaced persons per capita of the population of a Member State as the basis.

One final point which I would like to mention, and I do not understand why Mrs Frahm does not want this, is that we must also have the option to make money available for refugee reception centres. You reject this and I simply cannot see why, because this is the first point of contact where we can provide specific help, accelerate processes and promote refugee integration.

However, in all the proposed measures, we must not fail to recognise that one objective has not been addressed here, namely taking into account the distribution of the refugee burden. Please do so in implementing the measures which are necessary and positive.

  Terrón i Cusí (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, firstly, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, because I believe she has produced a really good piece of work. Furthermore, her report expresses this Parliament’s pleasure. For us, the establishment of this Fund is good news.

Since 1997, we have been trying to carry out coherent work in this respect, and we have had some successes. However, in order to be fully successful, we need a legal basis to ensure the continuity of the work on improving the reception, the integration, or, where they wish it, the satisfactory return of the asylum seekers and refugees present in the European Union. Those are three different areas of work. We have to safeguard all three, and I agree that we must maintain a reserve fund in order to deal with the arrival of displaced persons without endangering the development of better infrastructures and practices within the Union.

With regard to the distribution of resources, we have to take account of the need to show solidarity with countries which are highly committed to the question of refugees, but we also have to bear in mind – as the report says – the need for countries which have less of a tradition of accepting refugees – such as my own – to improve their infrastructures and services so that they may reach the same level as the other countries and take on – because I believe this should be the objective – higher levels of responsibility together with the other countries of the European Union.

The Member States have a major role to play in this respect and must make considerable efforts. However, I would like to point out that we should also make use of our experience of managing other funds, especially the Structural Funds, in order to involve local and regional administrations and the organisations representing civil society in this management, in addition to the Member States. This would create added value, because contact with the NGOs and the local administrations could contribute to the fight against racism, to involving society and informing the citizens of the reception countries of the importance of asylum and refugees. Furthermore, using the practices already developed for the management of those funds could promote interaction between them. We must develop policies which are coherent with both funds.

Lastly, I would like to add my voice to those which have called for a greater financial contribution to the European Refugee Fund.

  Ceyhun (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, firstly I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, for this excellent and extensive report. However, as she herself did, I would like to point out a few problems which, in our opinion, are still important and which need to be remedied. The allocation criteria, which are based on the average number of asylum applicants and recognised refugees and the nature of the projects, are perhaps not adequate to achieve a fair distribution of the burden. In practice, the countries which take in the greatest number of refugees will probably receive the most funds. Insofar as it goes that is okay, but it should not mean that the other EU States go short and, ultimately, that the refugees in these states, who are not particularly numerous, should be the ones to miss out on the benefits.

We must also deal with the actual money to be allocated, which must be in proportion to the stated objectives. Financing must be ensured up to 2004. So far, the balance sheet has not made any clear statement for the period after 2001. If we can resolve this issue, then we should do so. Only in this way can the European Refugee Fund be used sensibly and efficiently.

  Berthu (UEN). – (FR) Mr President, it seems legitimate that the states of Europe should demonstrate solidarity in the event of a sudden, massive, exceptional influx of refugees driven by some external disaster, but what the Commission is proposing today is a different kettle of fish. The proposal is to establish a permanent European Fund distributing appropriations to assist Member States in managing their countries’ usual flow of refugees, genuine or not. This proposal raises many questions.

Are Member States themselves no longer capable of managing the refugees they receive in normal circumstances? How would their situation be improved by giving money to Brussels, only to have Brussels immediately give it back to them? Will some countries be net contributors and others, net recipients, and if so, which? The answers to these questions cannot be found anywhere in the reports passed on to us. We cannot even find a statistical table of the numbers of refugees currently residing in the various countries of Europe.

Once again we are being asked to take an important decision while being kept in the dark. It is all the more worrying that the planned system is liable in itself to exacerbate abuses since reducing the immediate costs for each State may lead to a reduction in its vigilance, ultimately increasing the overall cost for everyone. This is a pernicious effect which insurers are familiar with.

This risk is, in turn, all the greater since the proposed text is extremely vague when it comes to defining the type of person that qualifies as a refugee. There is, of course, the standard definition of refugee given in the 1951 Geneva Convention, but obviously all sorts of categories of displaced person can be added to the list, including persons accepted into the country in accordance not with international commitments but only with national legislation, decisions or practice.

In such conditions, the risk of things spiralling out of control and of financial abuse is very great indeed, Mr President, and the report itself even implies as much when it states that the planned appropriations, even though they still amount to EUR 36 million, are much less than the potential demand. The Union for a Europe of Nations Group considers that there is just one solution if we want to halt this risk: for each Member State to retain financial responsibility for the reception of refugees, and for European solidarity to be kept only for exceptional tragic circumstances.

  Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many of us have repeatedly called for the European Refugee Fund to be established. The persuasive examples of what happened in Kosovo – and on a smaller scale, in East Timor – proved necessary, in order to support the evidence that this fund was needed. The entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam has facilitated this new approach to European policy on asylum and migration, which, as Mr Oostlander has already pointed out, requires a degree of solidarity between Member States, and there should therefore be mechanisms designed to contribute to finding a balance between the work undertaken by Member States who receive these refugees and their being able to bear the short- and long-term consequences of welcoming these people.

We feel it is right that the fund should have an emergency component, which would apply to cases of a massive influx of people in a situation where they need international protection, but which, at the same time, guarantees that structural policy measures will be financed. In other words, there must be a component which will enable us, under a multiannual programme, to provide effective support for measures designed, firstly, to improve conditions of reception, secondly to promote integration, thirdly to facilitate voluntary repatriation and fourthly to facilitate reintegration.

The experience of Kosovo has proved that most displaced people, including those who have been granted refugee status, were willing to return to their country of origin as soon as the necessary conditions were met. I would therefore like to emphasise something that Mr Pirker has already mentioned, and that is the difference between migration and temporary refugees. What must in one case be met with policies of support for integration must, in others, in the interests of the refugees themselves, be met with policies of support for a return to the country or region which they were forced to flee. The two situations are quite different and require different responses. To confuse them would be to give way to populist rhetoric. I would also like to stress the need to speed up the establishment of legal instruments which will facilitate the mobilisation of funds that have already been earmarked for this purpose. Specific rules will also have to be laid down covering the criteria and organisational provisions for the allocation of these funds and for activating the respective monitoring mechanisms.

  Vitorino, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, on behalf of the Commission, I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Frahm, rapporteur for the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, for her excellent work, the quality of her report, and the support it gives the Commission’s proposal.

You know better than I do that the proposed Council decision on this Fund was adopted by the Commission on 14 December 1999. It is in line with an approach, my own personal approach, which I put forward during my hearing before the European Parliament’s Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. The Fund is a single instrument combining support for Member State actions on the reception, integration and voluntary repatriation of refugees and displaced persons, which were previously dealt with in joint actions and pilot projects on the basis of appropriations allocated annually to the Community budget on the initiative of the European Parliament.

This Fund is not intended to substitute for Member States’ efforts in the field of refugee reception and integration, but it does represent an initial step, highlighting a key political aspect of European strategy: strategy on asylum must be based on shared responsibility at European level. I think that adopting this Fund contribute to showing that, in this area, the European Union as such can provide added value for the efforts of each individual Member State.

We are setting up a European Refugee Fund for an initial period of five years. The total appropriation for 2000 is EUR 36 million, which includes EUR 10 million for emergency aid. I quite understand the rapporteur’s comments to the effect that this amount is inadequate given the needs and ambitions of the Fund itself. The Commission has already pointed out to the Parliament’s Committee on Budgets that it intends to propose, in its preliminary draft budget for 2001, the financial means to maintain the Fund for the next five years. In other words, the Commission will propose increasing the EUR 36 million for the year 2000 to EUR 45 million for the following years, thus taking the overall allocation for the five years to EUR 216 million. This is, I feel, an initial step in the right direction.

The European Refugee Fund is an instrument for solidarity between Member States, intended, as has already been stressed by several speakers, to contribute to balancing the efforts mentioned in Article 63(2b) of the Treaty. To this end, a proportional distribution of the resources among the Member States is envisaged: firstly in proportion to the number of asylum requests they receive (two thirds of the resources) and secondly in proportion to the number of refugees they accept into their country (one third of the resources).

I can understand why proposals were put forward to consider the number of refugees in relation to the overall population in each Member State. I must admit that the Commission itself attempted to consider this criterion, but we found it extremely hard to come up with a mathematical formula which did justice to the principle of sharing costs and efforts while including this criterion. I am perfectly willing to look into any practical solutions but it is not enough to simply state the principle. A practical solution must be found, and I have to tell you that that is no easy matter.

The European Refugee Fund will be able to cofinance Member State actions up to 50%, a level which can be increased to 75% for Member States benefiting from the Cohesion Fund. The proposed decision also provides for the possibility of financing emergency measures in the event of a massive influx of refugees from a reserve of EUR 10 million. In this respect, it provides an initial response to the request made by the European Council in Tampere.

Together with my fellow Commissioner, Michaele Schreyer, I have already initiated discussions on the ways of utilising, in the event of an emergency, the maximum possible resources suited to the needs of the situation. In this area, however, what worries me more than the figures – because, unfortunately or fortunately, the necessary funds cannot be provided to respond to emergencies such as Kosovo – and what we are looking for is some financial and also administrative mechanism sufficiently perfected to fulfil needs efficiently in an emergency situation.

The selection and administration of Fund projects, as regards structural aspects, are delegated to the Member States within the framework of cofinancing requests. Implementation, monitoring, follow-up and assessment arrangements are based on the existing conditions for Structural Funds.

As regards amendments, the Commission has taken note of all the proposed amendments and can accept, conditional upon some formal reworking, in some cases, the principles behind a number of them which aim to make the objectives of the European Refugee Fund clearer in the introduction, or to make some terms more precise. One particular case is the mention, in the introduction, of the importance of NGO activities, and there are some useful clarifications, such as transparency in the project selection process, or the need to promote the long-term continuity of projects. The principle of minimal Fund participation enables each Member State to provide effective support, regardless of the extent of flows of refugees.

The Commission cannot, however, go along with other sets of amendments, particularly those on budgetary methods. These will, in any case, become irrelevant if the budgetary authority ratifies the Commission’s proposals to set the allocation for the Fund at EUR 216 million for the five years. It cannot align itself with the amendments on the Member States’ strategy and on setting up a partnership with the various operators affected by asylum policy. This is an initial experiment with a decentralised asylum-related programme. The competent national administrations are by no means familiar with these procedures. In this decision it is important to avoid anything which might add to their workload and slow the process down, without allowing for the fact that the amounts involved are not vast and that if this decision for the year 2000 is adopted this year, that will not leave much time to prepare cofinancing requests. The Commission proposes to take on board some of the ideas put forward in the amendments in terms of defining the practical arrangements for the implementation of this instrument and for the dialogue to be entered into with the relevant national bodies.

Finally, with regard to the amendments for cooperation with candidate countries, I think we must be quite clear on this. The Fund is intended to contribute to balancing Member State efforts. These modest enough resources should not be watered down further by the inclusion of secondary objectives. Cooperation of this type with the candidate countries would duplicate the action of other programmes, especially the PHARE programme for transposing the legislative acquis and bringing the competent authorities in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into line.

In conclusion, Mr President, the Commission is delighted to see the European Parliament support this initiative. I believe that we are now beginning to see the start of a journey dedicated to the values of asylum, a journey which will show that we can all meet the challenge of European solidarity in asylum matters.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr Vitorino.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.