Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-372"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.12.3-372"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to thank Mr Ceyhun, the rapporteur, and remind you, as he did, that the trafficking of human beings, particularly the trafficking of women and children, is, in itself, an odious phenomenon which is a growing source of concern, because it is not just a question of immigration policy or of security policy. This is basically an issue that concerns the violation of human rights and human dignity. Throughout the world, tens of thousands of human beings are trafficked for the purpose of exploitation every year.
The importance of this issue does not mean – and I think that this criticism is unfair – that we are addressing it because we are obsessed with building a Fortress Europe. This issue, which is complex and requires us to be very precise in the terms we use to discuss it, is today at the very top of the international agenda and, I think, received a broad, worldwide consensus when the United Nations Organisation promoted the adoption of a Convention against Transnational Organised Crime last December. This convention contains two additional protocols, one on the illegal transporting of immigrants into a country – smuggling, to use the English term – and another specifically covering the trafficking of people. These two protocols were signed by 81 States at the High Level Conference in Palermo last December.
Amongst the signatories to the United Nations Convention are all the Member States of the European Union and the Commission. I personally took the opportunity to call upon both the Member States of the Union and the candidate countries to proceed as quickly as possible with the ratification of this Convention, which will only enter into force when 40 countries have concluded their accession process. The European Union is, therefore, able to demonstrate its contribution to a worldwide fight against the trafficking of human beings.
Various speakers reminded us just now that, following the Dover tragedy last June, the Feira European Council called for measures to be adopted to combat illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings. This initiative by the French Government therefore addresses this concern and the Commission has no difficulties in acknowledging that, in principle, it should be supported. We must, however, clarify the terms of the debate properly. Today, I have, or rather the Commission has, been accused of paying little attention to the issues of illegal immigration and, furthermore, of not paying sufficient attention to drafting a comprehensible immigration policy. I hope you will not be offended if I do not go into great detail, at 11.15 at night, in order to refute all the accusations and if I simply tell you sincerely that I do not consider these criticisms to be at all justified where the Commission is concerned. For example, our immigration policy does contain a security component. This component cannot be the main one, or exclusive, but we cannot ignore the fact that the trafficking of human beings is a serious problem, that also requires security measures. I am therefore surprised – I shall not say shocked, which is a very strong word – that Mr Berthu has only found one paragraph on illegal immigration in a Commission communication which seeks to address the issue of legal immigration and that he has not, for example, discovered that the Commission has presented two proposals for framework decisions. One of these proposals is intended to eliminate the trafficking of human beings for the purpose of exploitation, specifically to ban child pornography on the Internet. I am also surprised that Mr Berthu has not noticed that the Commission has presented a proposal for a framework decision to eliminate the trafficking of human beings for the purpose of economic exploitation, in other words, for the purpose of promoting illegal work.
Similarly, just as we agreed to discuss the French initiative, in which security features very prominently, the Commission has already initiated a discussion in the Council on a proposal for a communication on a European asylum system and a communication on legal immigration, in other words, on the rights and duties of third-country nationals who are allowed to enter the Union legally. We have tried to define a balanced policy but the contradictory criticisms that have been made in this House show that we may well not have achieved this yet. These criticisms have not convinced me, however, that the Commission is not on the right track.
We have two fundamental concerns about the French proposal, which make it difficult for us to accept the proposed text. Our first concern is about the legal basis, which is not a minor issue. We feel that the French initiative must be completely underpinned, notwithstanding its reference to aggravating circumstances, by a legal basis under the first pillar, such as the Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 63(3)(b). It can clearly be inferred from this article of the Treaty that competence for illegal immigration has been given to the Community. It is also clear that the Community
does not have Community competence in criminal issues. Nevertheless, I wish to remind Parliament that there is case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Communities which indicates that, in cases in which the Community, within a clearly defined jurisdiction, has power conferred upon it by the Treaties to regulate activity in order to achieve a Community objective, it also has the power to decide whether the fact that this activity does not comply should be punished at national level by criminal sanctions. This, as I see it, is especially true in this case.
Our second concern involves the scope of Article 1(a) of the draft directive. In its current wording and as matters stand today, this measure in the French proposal contains no reference to the objective of financial gain. The Commission is willing to study this approach, in other words, not to lay down the requirement of financial gain, but this would have to be balanced by a carefully worded exemption clause for cases where illegal entry, movement and residence are subject to assistance for humanitarian reasons. This is the only way it will be possible to distinguish clearly between humanitarian assistance under international commitments, specifically respect for the Geneva Convention, and the trafficking of human beings which is punishable by law.
I wish to conclude, Mr President, by saying that the Commission feels that other elements must be included in the French proposal, such as, for example, establishing an obligation for administrative coordination and cooperation between the competent national departments, creating a system for the exchange of information between Member States and imposing the obligation on Member States to adopt the appropriate measures to provide humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants. I wish to make one final comment, which is that, in line with the Tampere conclusions and the Commission ‘scoreboard’, we have presented a proposal for a framework decision on combating the trafficking of human beings. We would therefore like the joint work of the Council, Parliament and the Commission to show clearly that there is no overlap between the French initiative and the two framework decisions presented by the Commission, but rather complementarity. These framework decisions are part of the broader issue of the fight against illegal immigration, which involves a proactive policy of legal immigration under the terms proposed by the Commission in its communication issued last November. Of course, this also involves other complementary policies that the Commission intends to propose to the Council in May, specifically on the issue of a policy of return and of the conditions for sending citizens from third countries back to their country of origin. I hope that the conclusions of the informal Stockholm Council meeting last week will enable us, at the Laeken European Council, to take stock of this debate on a common immigration policy and on a European asylum system which respect our international obligations and which guarantee the stability and security of the Union’s Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples