Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-06-Speech-3-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000906.1.3-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force that the European Parliament has been consulted on a Commission proposal for a Council directive on the matter of the lawful immigration of persons originating from third countries.
I should like to explain to you all what the Commission’s position is on the more difficult political issues in this directive.
First, the scope of the proposal: the Commission believes that refugees should be included within its scope, because from a political viewpoint it would be incomprehensible if economic migrants were granted a right to family reunification that we did not grant to refugees recognised under the Geneva Convention. I accept, however, that it is necessary to exclude the beneficiaries of temporary protection or subsidiary protection. This is not a matter of going back on a question of principle. I am convinced that a certain kind of beneficiary of temporary or subsidiary protection should also have the right to family reunification. I do recognise, however, that the lack of harmonisation of this concept at European level and especially the Commission’s intention to submit a directive on temporary and subsidiary protection to Parliament and the Council next year will allow us to deal with the right to family reunification in that directive very soon. We therefore accept an amendment to the proposal excluding beneficiaries of temporary or subsidiary protection.
Where issues relating to the concept of the family are concerned, I should like to make it very clear that in this proposal the Commission is not interfering in the matter of defining the concept of the family. This proposal fully accepts that each Member State has the competence to define what a family is, as well as the issue, for instance, of unmarried partnerships. This proposal does not say that all the Member States will be obliged to recognise unmarried partnerships and accept unmarried partners under all circumstances. We are simply saying that in those countries where unmarried partnerships are placed on an equal footing with marriage in domestic law for their own nationals, these unmarried partnerships must also be recognised for the purpose of family reunification for third-country nationals. I should therefore like to state clearly that there is nothing in this proposal favouring family reunification for polygamous marriages. I am sorry, but the text is quite clear! It is not possible to apply for a second wife to come! Only one exception is made: for the children of the second marriage if the interests of the child so justify. But how could you explain treating the children of a second polygamous marriage differently from the children of a first marriage or the children of an unmarried partnership? I am not a subverter of moral values, but I think we have to keep the interests of the children in the forefront.
Finally, Mr President, the Commission is willing to accept a number of other amendments and other modifications regarding the rights of family members, the conditions and clarification of the conditions for family reunification, the situation in which the person being reunited may acquire independent status, and concerning procedural rules. Full details will be given before the vote is taken.
I should like to conclude by saying that this is, of course, an exercise that will give rise to debate. The debate with the Council will not be easy, just as the debate with Parliament has not been easy. I respect the opinions of all Members. I should like the final opinion of Parliament to have as broad a support-base as possible. And I hope – regardless of our differences of opinion, which are to be expected and, may I say, useful and essential for democracy – that once this directive has been adopted, we may all be able to pool our efforts to solve the essential question that we have before us. This question is how we can create a clear and transparent legal framework that will ensure the integration of lawful immigrants into their host countries and we must do so because this integration is the key to the success of a common European immigration policy.
It is therefore a sign of the profound institutional changes introduced by the Treaty and given top priority on the European political agenda by the Heads of State and Government at the Tampere European Council. The Commission has decided that a proposal on family reunification should start us off on this journey, this considerable effort to construct a common European immigration policy. I should also like to begin by explaining why we have chosen this subject – in answer to a critical observation from Mrs Klamt, whom, regardless of our differences of opinion, I should like to congratulate on the work she has carried out as the first rapporteur for this matter.
I believe family reunification is a concept that is thoroughly coherent with the commitments that all the Member States undertook several decades ago in the sphere of international law. From the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the international convenants made under the United Nations in 1966, to the European Convention on Human Rights itself – in all these instruments of international law family protection is upheld as an essential factor for ensuring social peace. I do not believe anybody can deny that family reunification is also an important instrument for the integration of immigrants from third countries into their host societies. This has indeed been repeatedly recognised by the bodies of the European Union. That is, since 1993 the Council has been devoting constant attention to the subject of family reunification. It must also be recognised that family reunification is significant in numerical terms because it is today one of the main causes of immigration into the countries of Europe.
The directive is not creating this flow of migrants; what the directive intends is to regulate a situation that already exists on the ground. Those who refuse to see that this directive aims at setting up legal rules to respond to a situation that already exists on the ground and try to blame the Commission for inventing a new flow of migrants are therefore being unfair in their analysis of the actual situation that we are addressing.
That is why the Commission decided that family reunification should be given priority treatment over other forms of lawful immigration. It is not a matter of deciding on entry and residence for economic purposes, or the immigration of workers, or the immigration of students. As we see it, it is a matter of regulating a different form of admittance in response to values – that is, family protection – and a strategic political objective: the promotion of the integration of third-country nationals who are already living lawfully in the Union into their host societies. We are basing our approach on a principle which is debatable, but without any evidence to the contrary I believe it can be demonstrated. This is that family reunification is a factor which promotes the personal stability of the immigrant, since family life is always an important instrument for integration into the host country.
The Heads of State and Government at Tampere in fact unanimously stressed the need to ensure equitable treatment for third-country nationals who are lawfully resident in the Member States of the Union. They also stressed that a more dynamic integration policy needs to be developed in parallel, and that this policy should aim at offering third-country nationals rights and duties comparable to those held by the citizens of the Union. These, then, ladies and gentlemen, are the values and political commitments upon which the Commission has based its proposal. I should also like to point out that the Commission has proposed an initiative in which family reunification is seen as a right. This is not, however, an absolute right of the third-country citizens who reside in the Union’s Member States, and reside there lawfully. Instead it is a right subject to conditions, whether procedural in nature or material conditions regarding the definition of the status of the family members in the country to which they have been admitted and regarding the rights that they enjoy.
I am willing to discuss all the implications of this proposal, also because the French Presidency considers this subject to be central during the six-month term for which it is responsible. For our part, we are also willing to introduce an amended proposal as quickly as possible so that we can achieve a positive outcome during the French Presidency.
I should like to thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate. Here as in the Commission it has been a lively, at times even passionate debate, because it deals with a sensitive issue on which, naturally, each country puts forward a very strong case for its own situation. It is difficult to find common ground at European level. Above all, however, this debate has one fundamental feature. It is no longer a debate on statements of intention: it is a debate on rules, binding legal provisions, which will have to be implemented. It is therefore natural that it should be a lively, even passionate debate, and one in which there are divergent views.
The Commission considers your opinion to be of the utmost importance. And I should like to congratulate Mr Wilson on the job he has done in presenting a report under the difficult circumstances in which this debate has taken place."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples