Mr. Michael Shotter:

On the external dimension and whether there is a risk in placing so much emphasis on this tailor-made approach with regard to external partner countries, as I was trying to explain earlier it is not we are placing exclusive emphasis on it; all the components have to be in place. It is not that we say to do the external and not to do the internal; all of it needs to be done, and that is what makes it rather complex and difficult. We cannot ignore the essential nature of tackling the issues. What are causes and drivers of migration? One has to consider the smuggling and criminal networks and the challenges third countries themselves have in dealing with migration, such as their own asylum system or the fact they may have many asylum seekers or people seeking protection. They can be helped with their own systems. I could go on with examples, such as developing their economies and societies in such a way that they will be better able to meet the challenges. There is a common ground where we can come together and find these common interests. It takes time, effort and investment, not only in terms of money but also in getting it right and understanding. It may be that the circumstances are quite different in one third country compared with another and, therefore, we need to be able to tailor-make these partnerships.

Legal migration also plays a part in this. We should aim to have a win-win relationship in that regard, where we may have needs in sectors of the economy or the functioning of society and the third country may have an interest in developing training and expertise in that area. We do not want to have a brain drain but a circular movement in order that we meet that ethical concern. It is not an optional part of a stable system; it is an essential part of a stable system. The issue of return is not an attractive subject to speak about but we have to acknowledge that it is part of a stable functioning system to get that side of the policy working well. That cannot be done without working in partnership with third countries because those third countries need to readmit people, and that is often a sticky and difficult point. That is why it is so important to get the external dimension right and to do it in a tailor-made way.

Deputy Richmond mentioned the differentiated responses from member states, and I think he was referring to the solidarity mechanism [inaudible]. Therefore, I might join this answer with another point mentioned. We included the flexibility to acknowledge that that is the way in which the European Union should work and having learned from the previous experience that this was quite a divisive issue. Equally, we understood that relocation, at the end of the day, is often what makes a difference on the ground to the country under pressure. We had to find a middle way on this.

In that regard, we built in some guarantees to ensure that the balance is correct. We have also got a critical mass correction mechanism. We build in to the regulation a central role for both relocation and return sponsorship to recognise the point that Senator Chambers was making, namely, that we need in the regulation itself to provide some guidance on this. It is not just total flexibility. We give some central preference to the role of these people-based solidarity measures, whether relocation or return sponsorship. If too many member states opt for the other path and if there is too much of that and not enough of the people-based solidarity, this correction mechanism will step in. It will also make it obligatory for all member states, once a threshold has been passed, to provide a certain amount of that people-based solidarity, whether through relocation or return sponsorship.

On the role of member state parliaments, it is obvious that this is a very important subject in political terms and, therefore, the role of national parliaments is essential. As for the interest of other parliaments, last week I had a similar hearing with the upper chamber of the Dutch Parliament, and a week before, with the Dutch lower chamber.

We acknowledged that parliaments have a keen interest. We have to find a way - that is also for the committee's national system - to keep abreast of how issues are developing.

Of course, there are some elements of this regulation which are set in Brussels. There is a sort of tension there and that was picked up also in the question of Senator Chambers. Also, there is discretion in the way the policy is implemented on the ground. Of course, the national parliaments have a clear interest in seeing how the policy is implemented on the ground.

I was also asked how the pact is being received by member states and what the next step for it is. The pact, when it came out, was as well received as we could expect it to be. The Commissioner, Ms Johansson, was clear. Nobody will be happy with this pact. It is such a difficult area. She was not expecting everyone to be jumping up and down in the street. It is a difficult area and we are calling upon all Members of the European Parliament as well to come with an open mind and find a compromise and a way through because that is the only way we will do this properly. Our objective in framing the pact, therefore, was to find a landing zone territory in pitching the pack and finding the balance so that all could come together and find that ground on which to negotiate.

There is still a negotiation to be had. That is for sure. It could not be expected that our proposal would come out and be instantaneously adopted by the Parliament and the Council, but what we wanted was to find that common landing zone where useful negotiations can take place rather than find ourselves in a deadlock situation. In that regard, it was well received and well understood that that is what we had tried to do. That is very positive. That is how we see it.

Now, of course, we are two months on from our proposal being made. We have had quite intense discussions already in the Council. It is premature to expect a breakthrough in December but we have had very useful exchanges under the German Presidency. The objective is to take this forward in the Council meeting on 4 December in as ambitious a way as possible through a progress report. That is my understanding of the objective of the German Presidency. That would be a good stepping stone to take this further forward under the Portuguese Presidency.

However, as the committee members could see from that puzzle slide I presented, there is a lot on the table, there is a lot to be discussed and it is complex. Member states need to feel comfortable with the details of what we have put on the table. That takes a little bit of time as well. It will need political steer from the political level but it will also need a sense of ownership which comes when member states have had a chance to study the finer details. One needs to bring those two elements together and achieve always a sense of momentum on this difficult subject.

There was a question on the common governance as to whether we will bring forward new legislation. What we have set out in the asylum and migration management regulation proposal on the governance is the proposed legislation. We would not be coming forward with anything extra. It is a framework. It is not imposing this in a detailed way. It is rather setting out a framework calling, for example, for a national strategy to be adopted. However, it does not then set out what precisely is in that strategy, which is obviously for implementation by the member state and also in light of the European strategy.

When it comes to the question on returns, this is an important essential component of the pact. I hope I have made that clear. We need to move towards a common EU system of returns. It is a difficult subject. What we have to do here is to find a way that is fully in line with our values and our protection of individual rights and to respect the dignity of those involved. At the same time we need to draw a distinction, if we are to have a stable system, between giving protection to those in need of protection in line with our obligations and acknowledging that those who do not follow the legal channels that we should put in place do not have an open right to come and stay within the EU. Therefore, we need for a stable system to be able to draw that distinction and deal with the consequences of it. I hope I have answered the questions.