Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-04-Speech-2-137"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000704.5.2-137"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
First of all, I should like to state the Commission’s position on the Tampere programme. I must emphasise the fact that, since Tampere, the Commission has already proposed a number of legislative instruments, so that they can be discussed by the Council and adopted within the deadlines that have been established by the scoreboard. I am not only talking about the instrument for the regulation of Eurodac. I am also talking about the proposal for a decision on the European Refugee Fund, the directive on temporary protection, the revision of the Dublin Convention, which determines which State is responsible for examining applications for asylum, and the results of the consultation on the definition of the common rules of procedure on asylum issues.
I think that we could even add the fact that, where legal immigration is concerned, the Commission has tabled a proposal for a directive allowing the families of foreign nationals working in the Union to join them. We carried out these measures in the six months following Tampere, in compliance with the deadline adopted under the scoreboard that the Commission presented to the Council. The Commission is not behind schedule, and although this is a complex debate, it is under way, both in Parliament and in the Council.
I therefore understand why Mr Ducarme should say that he feels disappointed. We all feel disappointed and the reality of the situation is indeed disappointing, but I must tell you – and this point needs to be emphasised – that the Commission has tabled the proposals that were laid down within the deadlines that were set. You said that my speech did not match the deadline that was set for the end of this year, so that the Nice European Council can evaluate the policy on asylum and immigration. With regard to this point, I suggest that you look more closely at which deadlines we are in fact discussing.
Nice has the task of undertaking a preliminary evaluation of the work of the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Immigration. These action plans have been drawn up by that Group and I must tell you that the Commission has more grounds for optimism today than it did three months ago, because we have managed to reach agreement with the Member States on measures for co-development that the Commission will have to implement under several Community policies, including those on human rights, economics and development aid. The Commission and the Member States have also reached agreement on measures to be adopted by Member States, with the five action plan countries.
The deadline of December 2000 that I mentioned is another deadline altogether! This deadline was not set for the Nice Council. This is a deadline that was set at Tampere for the approval of a legislative instrument which establishes common definitions, common incriminations and common punishments for trafficking in human beings, and specifically for trafficking in women and children for purposes of sexual exploitation. The Commission can reassure you on this point. Both the French Presidency and Mr Queyranne have just said that the French Presidency has tabled a proposal for a legislative instrument, a framework decision for the incrimination of trafficking and smuggling. The Commission itself is fully on time with this deadline and with presenting a framework decision for the prosecution of trafficking in human beings. I therefore think that we are indeed putting forward initiatives and I am counting on the support both of the Council and Parliament to be able to conclude these legislative procedures within the deadlines that have been fixed.
I should simply like to make two additional comments: the first, which is directed at Mr Berthu, who, unfortunately, is no longer present, is that, when I was talking about the fantasy of zero immigration, I meant that sometimes, the argument of zero immigration is used as a rhetorical instrument. It is also interesting to note that some leaders who use the argument of zero immigration in this way are also those who are largely responsible for immigration policies that are lax in terms of integrating immigrants into the societies that receive them. When one condemns the fantasy or the rhetoric of zero immigration, one does so in order to suggest that there is an alternative, and the alternative is to have a proactive immigration policy, which puts at the top of the list of common concerns the integration of legal immigrants into the societies that receive them. One condemns it in order to clarify the criteria and the principles of a coordinated immigration policy at European level. That is the alternative and – I am sorry to say so – I do not share the idea that the alternative is to reintroduce internal border controls by means of jointly run police stations, which would not be on the border, but thirty kilometres away from the border.
Lastly, my second comment is to say that I am delighted at the fact that this debate has achieved a very broad consensus on the priority we must give to the fight against organised crime, and I shall make a wish. My wish is that this consensus still exists when, at the right time, encouraged by the French Presidency and supported by the Commission, and within the deadlines fixed at Tampere, this Parliament is provided with the necessary instruments for combating money laundering. I say this because to combat money laundering is to have an effective instrument with which to combat organised crime. That is not rhetoric, because it is taking the fight to the very area in which the battle must be won."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples