Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-364"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.12.3-364"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I consider the two initiatives by the French Republic seeking to better define and strengthen penal sanctions against assisting the illegal entry of aliens into European territory to be particularly welcome.
Illegal immigration, which is growing rapidly, is indeed becoming a major problem for the countries of Europe. A good indication of this is the increase in the number of asylum requests, which have virtually doubled in the last three years in the main European countries, even though approximately three quarters of these are rejected as unjustified, thereby greatly increasing the number of immigrants illegally resident on our territory.
Europol currently estimates that 500 000 illegal immigrants enter the European Union every year. This influx of marginalised individuals provides a breeding ground for all sorts of crime and exploitation. According to the United Nations Organisation, even within Europe some half a million people from this illegal staff pool are reduced to slavery, mostly women and children, who are victims of sexual or economic exploitation.
This situation is a source of shame for Europe and I must say that I am shocked when I read the Commission communication of 22 November 2000 on the Community immigration policy to find that it includes only one tiny paragraph, and a vague one at that, on illegal immigration. I am shocked, too, to see that the Commission’s first practical proposal in application of this policy was for a particularly lenient draft directive on family reunion.
Once again, one has the impression that the concerns of the Commission are out of step with the concerns of Member States, which raise genuine practical problems. For, after the French Presidency, which made the fight against illegal immigration one of its priorities, we now have the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his Italian counterpart, Giuliano Amato, sounding the alarm and demanding an action plan to combat such trafficking.
That is why I totally agree completely with Mr Kirkhope that the amendments by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs are quite misplaced, as they water down the French text. I also agree that these texts have been brought out at just the right time. Contrary to the claims made in some of the committee’s amendments, there is no need to wait for a general policy on immigration before taking steps immediately in the specific field of illegal immigration.
There is a clear need for such action as a matter of urgency. Indeed it is a requirement of the Treaty of Amsterdam, since Article 63(3) stipulates that, for the five years following its entry into force, measures must be taken as a priority against, I quote, “illegal immigration and illegal residence, including repatriation of illegal residents.”
The French Republic’s initiatives on illegal immigration must therefore be approved, followed up and reinforced. We must, incidentally, note our approval of Article 67(1) of the Treaty of Amsterdam which, amid some more unfortunate provisions, had the wisdom to retain Member States’ right of initiative in parallel with the Commission’s, even in those aspects of immigration policy which it sought to communitise. This exceptional juxtaposition, which, in this instance, turns out to be very helpful, is unfortunately only a temporary situation since it is scheduled to last only for a transitional period of five years following the entry into force of the Treaty. It is therefore going to expire on 30 April 2004. However, at that very time, at the beginning of 2004 we are due to have an intergovernmental conference that will specifically have to look into the distribution of competences between the European Union and the Member States.
I believe that it would be a good idea for its agenda to include a proposal for extending the duration and scope of States’ right of initiative."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples