Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-18-Speech-4-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010118.11.4-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Committee on Petitions. This is not the only issue concerning legally resident third-country nationals where we have a problem concerning the appropriate legal base. I am thinking, for example, of the extensions of the 1408/71 Regulation concerning the coordination of social security systems.
The Tampere Summit in 1999 spoke of according similar rights to third-country nationals as those enjoyed by EU citizens. Yet we still have those who wish to view them as short-term travellers, rather than as people who have much contribute to the Union. Otherwise why would our governments be so keen to encourage inward investment from American and Asian companies? We believe we need political coherence in our policy-making in this area. The lack of such coherence partly explains the argument over the legal base.
The Committee on Petitions supports the view taken by the rapporteur, Mr Deprez, and thanks him for his diligence in this matter. It was our committee's view that we could reduce the number of such disagreements with the Council in future by reducing the number of individual national initiatives in this area and looking instead for Commission proposals which go through an initial vetting procedure. I know that the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has already raised this with the Swedish presidency and we must hope it bears fruit.
On the substantive issue, while being aware that not all Member States are involved in the Schengen Agreement, of course, it seemed to our committee that we should bring the rights of third-country nationals into line with those of citizens. This is particularly important where partners, not parents as it says in my explanatory statement for some very strange reason, are affected by a different legal status, and we have had a number of petitions on these issues which we added to our opinion. We felt it was also important to support the position of Mr Deprez, as the need for this proposal itself is more the result of bureaucratic delay than decision-making.
It is our hope and expectation also that the Committee on Petitions will automatically be asked for an opinion in good time on such issues in future."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on petitions."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples