Sophie IN ’T VELD (RE, NL), rapporteur for the Reception conditions directive, Fabienne KELLER (RE, FR), rapporteur for the Asylum procedure regulation, Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), rapporteur for the Qualification regulation, and Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), rapporteur for Eurodac speak to the press on Migration Pact files. On Wednesday, Parliament is set to give its final green light to the reform of the EU’s asylum and migration rules. The new rules will ensure responsibility sharing among member states in the management of migrant arrivals, a more efficient response in case of crisis, and respect of fundamental rights. Before the vote, MEPs will review the ten legal acts in a debate with Council and Commission. This transcription is the result of an automatic process. Please check against delivery.

Brussels

migration and refugees in Europe (T)

press conference

IN 'T VELD, Sophia (Renew, NL)

KELLER, Fabienne (Renew, FR)

BUXADÉ VILLALBA, Jorge (ECR, ES)

new pact on asylum and migration (T)

NEMEC, Matjaž (S&D, SI)

Press conference by Sophie IN ’T VELD (RE, NL), Fabienne KELLER (RE, FR), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI) and Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES) rapporteurs on Migration Pact files

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), Thank you very much. Good afternoon to all. This is a very important time for the European Parliament. After three and a half years of intense work on this pact and a dozen odd text and some of these have not moved forward and some have been doubled up. But we have a number of texts aimed at having a true European policy on asylum and migration. There's four characteristics, this true governance at the European level, a strategic leadership of the 27 member states with a key role for the Commission. Then there's a solidarity mechanism, and that is unprecedented on the European level to assist Member States subject to migratory pressures. Third characteristic is better control of irregular migration with enhanced screening and registering of people at the external borders, and an accelerated procedure for those people who are not fortunate enough to be granted asylum. That is the procedural side.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), Then we will have increased harmonisation because apart from the Reception Conditions Directive, we will have regulations that are directly applicable in Member States. For the Parliament and for the Renew group, and I believe for the broad majority of the Parliament that has been working on this project for several years, this is the outcome of difficult and heavy work. Asylum procedures have been regulated at the country level. Then we have the Schengen area and then we need to involve all 27 member states who have had to revise the Schengen code.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), So this is about consistency and application of the same rules in the post Dublin context, which was so problematic in its application. My first year here was taken up with an assessment of the Dublin Regulation, which is to be replaced by a much more balanced text, including the possibility to apply for asylum in a different Member State to the Member State of first entry, if you have a family there. And this also includes solidarity. So this is not a given vote tomorrow. This is a symbolically important point in time, but we wish to demonstrate that the European Parliament is able to work constructively to suggest improved management of migration and asylum, rendering that more efficient and more respectful for all the people who wish to enter our continent. Thank you.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), Welcome and good afternoon on my behalf. I will be speaking in Slovenian. Europe is at a watershed moment. After eight years of blockage and several attempts, we have finally made it. It is certain that by adopting this entire package, the migration and asylum reform, Europe is actually stepping into a new period. What we have at our tables is not a perfect solution. It's a compromise that the European Parliament has swallowed down as a bitter pill. However, this reform was necessary. It was needed. I was the rapporteur for qualification regulation. My predecessor negotiated to this file previously, and I would like to thank her for all of the work she had done. The large part of the text had been agreed to back in 2018. However, Europe and the world were significantly different back then.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), I am convinced that such a text in this day and age and in these conditions couldn't have been adopted. So the proposed qualification regulation was part of the proposal put forward by the Commission back in 2016, and this regulation will replace the existing directive on qualification. It stipulates, first of all, the conditions for acquiring the international protection, either through the status of the refugee or through the status of a subsidiary protection, and it also defines the rights of the beneficiaries in the case of a positive decision. This regulation is a key building block of the future European asylum system. It will provide for an equal treatment of applications all over the Europe.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), Up until now, the use of the directive was very arbitrary. Countries had to implement the directive into their national legislation and implement it. However, we have seen that there were significant discrepancies and deviations. We are familiar with cases when, for example, an applicant for an international protection coming from Afghanistan had basically a zero chance to get a positive decision in one member State and in another member state, that same person had a 100% chance of getting a positive decision. And we do hope that stories like this one will be part of the past and that Europe will now come to life in this area as well. I think that a unified minimum length of the residence permit is one of the positive achievements of this qualification regulation, and for the status of a refugee, this permit will be valid for three years. For those who have a status of a subsidiary protection, it will be valid for at least one year and then when it is renewed, for at least of two years.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), Of course, the checking of the status will not be automatic. It will not be mandatory because the status applies with the beneficiary so long as the need for its protection are enforced. I am very proud of this achievement and we have also expanded the definition of the family for the purposes of this regulation. The novelty of this regulation is that we will be also assessing the availability of the internal protection. And thanks to the Parliament, we have significantly limited this principle and this assessment will only be necessary when the prosecution of the applicant is not carried out by the country. More protection will be given to the beneficiaries also because the residence permit will be issued much more faster and residence permits have to be free of charge.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), When it comes to the dealing with the applications, for example, it can take almost a year or even longer to deal with the application. So this modification is very important. All of the beneficiaries and applicants will be treated equally when it comes to the rights, when it comes to social protection, health protection, access to work, education and they will have the same rights as the citizens. Additional modifications have been introduced when it comes to unaccompanied minors who are a particularly vulnerable category of persons. I am very proud of the achievement by the programme and thank you for the attention. If you have any questions, I'm available.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), Thank you. I am the rapporteur for the Reception Conditions Directive and I'll say a few words about that in a minute. But first, more general remark: I will support the package or at least the largest part of it. I have abstained on a few parts and will do so again at the vote tomorrow because I do feel that we have an obligation to the citizens of Europe to show that Europe can actually work, that it can deliver. But we also have to recognise that there are very justified doubts and concerns about this package, and I think everything hinges on the implementation in the hands of a, let's say, a government that is fully committed to fundamental rights and European values.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), This package can actually improve the situation, it can speed up procedures, it can strengthen the rights and the reception conditions of the people arriving on our shores, but in the hands of governments who have no regard for fundamental rights, this can also lead to prolonged detention in very bad conditions. So everything depends on how it's going to be applied by the member states. Secondly, it depends on how the rules will be enforced by the European Commission. And there I have to say again, we have reason for concern because it's not as if we operate in a void. We have rules at the moment, we have standards, and they are not being applied. Specifically when it comes to reception conditions, we have a pretty good set of rules in many countries, they're not respected, they're not applied. And we see that the European Commission is not enforcing at all, nothing, zero. So that will have to change.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), But certainly this House after the European election will have to make absolutely sure and stay on the tail of the member states and the European Commission to ensure that this package is going to be applied fully in line with our European values. I mean, we cannot only point at the national governments and the European Commission. This House, to be honest, in the past five years, could have done a lot more. And I'm putting myself, I'm expressing it diplomatically,I have to say, because around Europe, we see people living in horrible conditions. We see that the the people are detained, that their the basic needs are not met. And this is not only for, let's say, economically weaker countries is also goes for the countries that I happen to know best. On reception conditions, this was, of course, negotiated already back in 2018. Then it was left on the shelf by the European Council or by the Council for many, many years.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), But I have to say I'm very glad that was the order, because we also have to to conclude that the political climate has changed. And I think what we managed to agree at the time is a very, very good standards that if it's going to be applied in practice, that we can be proud of as Europeans. I'm also glad that it was adopted as the standard across the package in particular because of the protections for children that it contains, the fact that children will get a representative from day one, because it's precisely the first days that decisions are being taken that will affect their future. So it's very important that not only do they get, you know, food and clothes and clothing and a roof over their head, but there's also somebody there to make sure that their legal rights are respected. We were, and I regret, unable to get a complete ban of detention, of children included.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), But at least we've managed to build in safeguards and limit the criteria for detention of children to the very, very minimum. We've also ensured that people can access the labour market more quickly, that they have access to decent health care that vulnerable groups and special groups get proper support, that children can go to actual, you know, normal schools that they're not kept in in separation. So in short, we've managed to achieve quite a lot in reception conditions directive. But again, it is essential that it's applied fully to the letter in the spirit, in practice and that not just the Member States ensure that, but also the Commission and this House. That by way of my introductory remarks, thank you very much.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), First, thank you to everyone. As a general comment on the package, I'd like to just state that this is a first step, a first step for getting back our European space of freedom and justice. But it is not enough. When it comes to Eurodac, member States will have a database that is broadened and amplified, meaning that we can compile and store fingerprints, travel documents, all information to be able to identify those who are in the European Union illegally and then make the right decisions or the decisions that are necessary, in that case, a return, for example, or other decisions.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), One of the main changes vis a vis the current Eurodac database that exists is the architecture, the organisation of the database that is currently being based on asylum requests. Now it will be individualised for each specific person, each specific migrant that is in Eurodac over the course of these eight years - we are all aware of this - over these eight years of Eurodac negotiations, all of the law enforcement authorities raised the issue of when it comes to residency permits and asylum requests. They have raised this issue. We've met a number of people who are making requests for asylum in several countries, so that one member state will grant that when others member states have not, this will no longer be possible. We will be compiling information also with the asylum seekers.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), The database will have those who have international protection to prevent secondary movement within the European space and to avoid abuse of protection system or Social Security in the Member States. Migrants who are illegally in a member state have carried out any illegal activities. This will be noted for facilitating the documentation for repatriation. Now, also, it's important to have to turn to an issue, for example, what's happening in Spain in the first quarter of 2024, 300,000 migrants came, 3200 migrants came to the Canary Islands, European have the right and duty to be able to know who these people are and know if they are making a request for an asylum procedure or another type of international protection and and follow up on what they're doing within the European space. This is common sense. Now, we also saw that in Melilla, ACNUR has stated that 700 people have entered illegally. Now the home office in Spain said that there were only eight. Now this does not compute.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), The European Union is a human organisation. We need updated data, accurate data so that we can use. We cannot just come down to the opinion of an international organisation that is not a part of the EU or what a certain member state believes that the numbers are. Also facial recognition images will assist us in understanding those who have fake documents. When Member States are requesting a clarification of this information, the biggest novelty is a notification of security issues, and I'd like to thank the shadows of also the Commission and the Council, because they assist us in including these security alerts that will assist the member states to prevent any type of a risk for security here in the European Union.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), The last thing, there was a decrease in the age for collecting data from 14 to 6 years of age. This will facilitate the understanding of minors being here and making sure that they are reunited with their parents to make sure that the families are together. This should be a priority for the EU so that we know that children are with their families. And this has been picked up greatly in the press. Thank you.

Q&A, We are from Danish national radio and television. I heard you, In 'T Veld, saying that you were not completely satisfied with everything in you, but also mainly interested in opinions from more of you. If this package is adopted by Parliament tomorrow, does that mean that the European migration policy is set in stone for a long period forward? As you think about having a European Parliament elections, the two times I know normally in this kind of elections, a lot of politicians will probably say that they will come to Strasbourg and Brussels and try to make changes in the coming five years. So do you and have you see this as the migration policy set in stone for more than the next five years if this package is adopted tomorrow for you? Thank you very much.

Q&A, Hi, this is the Financial Times. When the trilogue was stuck in December, some details still needed to be worked out. Can you tell me which ones and how that has been resolved? And I'm also kind of curious to hear how deals such as the one Italy is implementing with Albania fit in with the pact. Is that legal under the pact, especially under the APR regulation? Thank you very much.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), Whether it's set in stone. Well, look, when Council and Parliament have both, as it were, ratified, the political agreement. Yes, then it's law. Okay, then there's still some procedural steps. Does that prevent a future Commission or a future European Parliament from making changes? No, of course not. Is it very likely? No, it's not very likely. And this is also, I think, the reason that many people like me. I mean, because if you ask me, is this the kind of legislation that I would have drafted myself? No, absolutely not. The point is also that I've seen - I mean, I was there all those eight years and the years before, and I also know that we we will not have another opportunity to come to an agreement.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), But again, I mean, there will be people who may want to make changes making this package even worse from my perspective. But how it's going to be applied in practice is also going to, let's say, steer the debates. I mean, is it necessary to adjust at some point in time? But I very much hope that the member states and the Commission and the European Parliament are going to be collectively responsible for putting this into practice in a way which is in line with our values and which is actually also going to give people the feeling that we manage migration. Because there is one thing that I know absolutely sure: if we're not going to adopt this package, it is a complete illusion. And I'm saying this to some people who are voting against for reasons which I understand, is a complete illusion, to think that there's going to be a new proposal on the table anytime soon.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), It's not because this is already the third attempt. This is you know, this is the bare the bare minimum. So I don't think anybody is going to be very keen to reopen it in the years to come. As to the last question, are the, for example, the Italy Albania thing, is it legal that my my colleague will respond to that. But it is the kind of issues that make it very worried about how this is going to be applied in practice.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), I'll answer the two questions on the trilogue and what solutions came out of that. Well, that's up to the rules of trialogues. In December we debated the full text that were not concluded in 2018. In order one after the other, because they are interdependent and we were well aware of our mutual positions. We started with my text and that was unblocked when it came with the sped up procedure of welcoming families at borders. And that was demanded and in exchange we had very strong guarantees because this monitoring by the asylum agency, which was set up and that is already set out in the mandate of the agency. In the text we included that the Commission should quickly and publicly inform Member States. In the case of the reception conditions under Ms. In 'T Veld's directive that are not correct for families, and that's that borders for the families concerned.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), And we don't have any new families in this reception centre. So that unblocked things and then chapter by chapter we were able to go through this procedure regulation and we had changes to elements in the other texts until we were able to reach an overall agreement. On Italy and Albania, that is in the procedure text where we define the notion of a safe third country. That is going to be put to the vote tomorrow. There needs to be a link between the migrant and the safe third country. There's little information on the agreement with Albania. We asked authorities. They didn't say a great deal. The Commission has analysed this provision with Italy has in mind. They said that we don't yet have the text, we don't have the written elements and we don't know what the legal framework would be. So when it comes to this new pact, these types of agreements would not be included in the pact as it is put to the vote tomorrow.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), I mean, there is a big concern, especially among the countries of the Western Balkans, because nobody believes that those people will remain in Albania. And we just we just put in a difficult situation the Western Balkans countries. On the agreement, from my personal point of view, and also from the point of view of my group is not perfect, but it is. I mean, at least we have it. We can even work in the future on that, but at least we have something to work on. So the focus now is on the implementation and this is going to be a big challenge for some countries and this is what we have to take care about as a European Parliament. There will be probably some problems with that. So the last words, we have to focus on fixing the problem as they arrive. And this is also on us.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), Yes. I should like to answer to two of the queries on the agreement between Italy and Albania. It is a normal between two sovereign countries within the remit of Italy and Albania and subjected to international law. Now second. Is this something that is going to be etched in stone for history? I think if we look at the Asylum and Migration pact, there's something that we haven't mentioned much, it's what is still lacking. What are we doing with those who are not allowed to be in the EU? Those hundreds of millions that do not have a right to international protection under any system and during this pact we are looking to return, expulsions, repatriation. You can use the term that you feel best fits.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), There's not a single mention of that in this pact and that is what is lacking. And I would agree with my colleague that we will look at implementation and then we will realise that this pact lacks much. The European Parliament approach resolves some of these things. Another example that I know, the majority of immigrants that come illegally to Europe via Spain are coming from Morocco. Morocco is a safe country. Morocco receives 4 billion from the EU. It is a country that is receiving funding for irrigation, for programmes. It has no right for asylum, and we know that Morocco does not accept any of the returns made by European countries, Spain or France. We need to resolve this. The incoming Parliament will need to resolve this issue of repatriation and return to those to their home country. Thank you.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), One element, but I think this is not something that you should be asking us, but rather the candidates to lead the European Commission next time round. One element, which is of course missing in this is legal labour migration. Creating paths for legal labour migration. This House has been calling for that repeatedly because that is going to to ease the pressure on the asulym side. And as a matter of fact, we see some government leaders who are, let's say, publicly engaging in strong anti-immigration rhetoric, while with the other hand handing out hundreds of thousands of work permits because they actually need labour force. Let's please do that at a European level. Let's do it in a proper legislative manner and in line with our values. And then we will have a complete and balanced package.

Q&A, A question to Fabian Keller. You talked about how the texts are interdependent. If one or two of the texts falls tomorrow. What will happen? In fact, that's a question to all of you. What would happen tomorrow? Do we need all nine or ten texts to be adopted? What will happen? And this precarious architecture, if you will, is somewhat worrying.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), Well, the question is, if one of the attacks falls, what happens? The European Parliament has committed strongly to the package approach. This is a victory that we had. It was at the time of the French Presidency of the Council. With the Council. The Council would have rather had one or each text individually with the rules by preference. So our posture, the ten rapporteurs, signed an agreement in June 2022 with the five ambassadors: all the texts at the same time. That is the position, the the majority position of the European Parliament.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), If one of the texts were to fall, then they consistency, then, would obviously fall. We'll have to see what happens tomorrow. That's what's exciting about the vote. But our responsibility, a majority and a democratic majority of the European Parliament supports these texts. It is a step forward. Is it in a stone for a long time? It's something that we're trying to do for the long term. Migration has been a subject of humanity since its very existence. Its shape can change, the reality can change, as Sophia in 't Veld said, and I support that.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), How important it is to be able to speak with the countries of origin, for legal migration, for our needs. Yes, but also, of course, because of the brain drain that takes place when we take doctors, engineers, those who are highly qualified, wherever they may come from. And we know that their their home countries spent much to train them. So that's the second aspect that is lacking. One is legal migration, and the second part is overarching relations with the countries of origin, and of course, the taking back of individuals. But there's not a single country that doesn't recognise the fact that individuals should be able to come home.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), And then of course their university, their academic and the economic agreements. The ACP agreement, for example, that has been in place for a long time. Partnerships that we can imagine would be very much assisted by the participation of diaspora that are extremely important as it stands and significant in all of our European countries. So here's what we have now and what can be taken up in the next legislative period if we have this cornerstone, this European approach. Because to date, this asylum and migration policy isn't European, but rather substantially domestic.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), I think it is important to understand. You know, you've seen on my face I'm not jubilating, you know, I'm not going to open the bottle of champagne after this. But I do think that we've been elected to adopt only things that we like, but to take responsibility. And sometimes that is that is very painful. This is you know, I'm not an activist, I'm a politician. That means that I have to to to solve dilemmas and also stand by the choices that we make. But the benefit of the package approach was that it could keep on board, you know, people who are more left-leaning or more right-leaning, not the extremes.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), And we see that the two - let's say the two flanks - are not going to vote this package. I think that is important to understand. But we're taking our responsibility. Sometimes that is that that is painful. But it was the only way of getting a package through, and that is why everybody feels. And it doesn't mean because I have abstained on one of the files and not voted against because I do think it is important that we keep this package together. Because if not there may be, for example, my file reception conditions, and I'm actually quite happy with with the outcome, would also fall. So this is how it works in politics, and certainly, in difficult times when there a very chilly political climate.

Q&A, From Politico. The Commission has been going around signing these big deals with North African countries, Tunisia last month, I think Egypt giving billions as part of the agreements where the idea is to bring down migration from those countries. Is that compatible in your view with this migration policy? Does it undermine what has been taking a long time to do? The Commission kind of goes there with a few heads-of-state and just signs of big deal splurging money into countries, which are led by people who are not necessarily democratically elected leaders. Thanks.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), Of course, I would say that, yes, it is positive that the European Union signs agreements to make the implementation of legal systems more efficient with Morocco and Algeria, for instance. They are the two main focus of paths for trafficking groups who are trafficking human beings from and bringing them from North Africa to Europe. And that agreement has ground to a halt. I don't think I'm breaching any confidentiality by saying this, but in meetings with the Commission, we have been asking why we don't have an agreement with Morocco because thousands of Moroccans have been identified by the Spanish authorities and been told they need to return to their country and the Moroccan authorities are not receiving them.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), Of course, we need to strike agreements so that Morocco behaves as a good neighbour. We want good neighbours. And finally, and I would take the opportunity to respond on the question with a package approach. Eurodac has suffered the consequences of this because it was the most advanced file in the past two years, and it was held back awaiting the other files, reaching finalisation. So what will happen tomorrow? Well, I'll be very honest. I want Eurodac to be adopted because that is the good part here. And then of course, each MEP is free to vote as they see appropriate. But we trust in the good sense of our MEPs tomorrow.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA (ECR, ES), We represent Europeans. We don't represent lobbies or NGOs or stakeholder organisations when it comes to migration. We represent our voters, European citizens, and I think we all agree. I don't know anyone in Europe who is not concerned about the questions of immigration and security in Europe.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Fabienne KELLER (Renew, FR), Thank you very much. I was mentioning agreements with countries of origin. These are indispensable. We need to discuss them. Many of their citizens come to Europe for work, many of them, because we want also for them to have a good and overarching relations and for returns. But when it comes to agreements with Tunisia and Egypt, these are not good models. They were negotiated too hastily. They do not look at all of the aspects that I looked at prior to this comment. And we know the European Parliament was not associated in that, neither for the agreement with Tunisia or for the agreement with Egypt. This is unacceptable when it comes to respecting democratic principles. Yes, we should have dialogue with the countries of origin, but with respect on both sides, with balance, with as in every agreement, a deal that addresses all aspects economic, human, our values. That we are in a situation of mutual respect with these countries.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), Indeed, in the real world, unfortunately, we cannot choose our neighbours, and they're not all going to be model democrats. And yet, they will still be our neighbours, and we have to talk to them. But if we are going to make any any agreements that involve the migration dimension, they will have to have a proper legal basis. They will have to be completely transparent. There has to be, you know, the opportunity to audit, to scrutinise what's happening. And none of the deals that have been concluded by Mrs. von der Leyen, but it also applies to the so-called Turkey deal, which wasn't a deal, but the statement, which basically has the legal status of a beer coaster, I always like to say.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Sophia IN 'T VELD (Renew, NL), You know, throwing money at dictators is not migration policy. It will just keep the dictators in place for longer and make the problem bigger because we have not seen a drop in migration in numbers of arrivals ever since Mrs. von der Leyen, Mr. Rutte and Mrs. Meloni travelled there. So no, that is not a very good model. Do we talk to our neighbours? Yes. Do we have to conclude agreements? Yes. Can there be a migration dimension? There probably will have to be, but it will have to be fully in line with our values. And I find there is a bit of a contrast between the kind of photo opportunity that we saw of Mrs. von der Leyen with the dictator of Tunisia and the leader of Egypt. And then also the photo opportunity with Mrs. Meloni or Mr. Mitsotakis. And Mrs. von der Leyen being completely quiet about pushbacks, about human rights violations, about people being illegally shipped back literally in the belly of a ship. It's a bit uneven there.

SOUNDBITE (Original), Matjaž NEMEC (S&D, SI), That kind of agreements are against the European values, to be frank. I mean, the question mark would be, are we helping the people or we are helping the regime because they are not transparent and actually are they fully aligned with the human rights values? I don't think so. So that's why we are concerned about that kind of agreements. And to be frank, I would say not aligned with the pact. So there's going to be a big challenge for us for the European Parliament to reopened these kind of questions during the next term.