Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.3.2-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In just a few months, the Commission has completed a significant task, producing the proposals for directives which we now need to examine and which concern: harmonising the conditions for the reception of applicants for asylum; harmonising the procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status; revising the Dublin Convention; harmonising refugee status and, finally, subsidiary forms of protection.
At the conference the floor will be open for contributions from all participants which should help us – and this is our political objective – to make some essential choices at the Laeken European Summit. The idea is to reinject momentum into the search for a global approach towards migration.
Furthermore, we are all aware that these questions of principle conceal a certain tendency for people to exploit the phenomenon for economic and even political ends and we cannot ignore this. Significant migratory flows head for Europe, either abusing the procedures which were designed for completely different purposes or, even, entering Europe completely illegally, which is of course just as reprehensible. A large number of these illegal migrants also benefit from criminal help, both abroad and in our own countries. Obviously these abuses of the system sustain those who try to exploit the migratory phenomena for economic purposes or to achieve political aims and we cannot remain indifferent to this.
I was pleased to see that the issues which will be debated during the conference are the same as those raised in Mr Pirker’s report on immigration. How can we manage migratory flows successfully? How can we draw a clear distinction between asylum and immigration? What impact would relaxing the conditions governing the entry of immigrants have on illegal immigration? Do our Member States need a new wave of economic migration? Is this need felt to the same extent across the Union? What consequences does the fight against the shadow economy have for illegal immigration? What are the undesirable consequences of the migration of qualified labour and how can we counter them? In which areas do we work together with the countries of origin? What instruments can we put in place to establish a genuine policy of integration?
The presidency believes that this is not simply a question of resolving technical issues: everyone knows that these matters are highly charged, economically and politically, but also at a purely human level. We need to take account of many phenomena, including underground ones, which makes establishing a common immigration policy particularly complex, especially from an economic point of view.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before drawing to a close, I should like to remind you of our desire to work in full institutional collaboration with you, the European Parliament, within the rules laid down in the treaties, in the hope that together we will be able to take further steps towards creating an area of freedom, security and justice which will benefit Europe and the people of Europe. This is already the third time that I have had the pleasure of addressing you. This is not an onerous task; it is an honour, and I am delighted to be able to work together with you.
Although we need to see all of these texts as part of an indissociable whole, there is good reason to be self-disciplined about the order in which we examine them. Bearing in mind the timetable set by the Commission scoreboard and the Commission communication on asylum which provides for a two-stage approach, the presidency has decided to focus as a priority on the three following directives: harmonising the common minimum conditions for the reception of asylum-seekers; the Community instrument to succeed the Dublin Convention and harmonising procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status.
The first two documents have had their first reading, which I might describe as encouraging and from which it was clear that Member States wish to make progress in this field as quickly as possible. As far as harmonising procedures is concerned, I organised an exploratory debate at political level during the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 27 September, based on specific questions which required specific answers. For example, the Member States had to give their views on how the directive should be structured, and in particular on the criteria to be used to distinguish between admissible applications and manifestly unfounded ones, the number of bodies involved in assessing these criteria, their nature, the appeals mechanism making it possible to refer the matter to them, and how precise to make the qualitative standards for the decisions and the authorities making those decisions. It was proposed to ministers that the same working method be used to examine the directive on family reunification. This exercise made it possible – although it is certainly difficult – to make some progress, particularly on defining the notion of the nuclear family.
It is clear that the diversity of the national systems in place in our Member States means that any moves to bring them into line with each other will indisputably and necessarily require significant efforts to be made on all sides. None of the Member States can hope that the uniform system will correspond to what it has been familiar with at home.
Above and beyond these national differences, however, I did note with satisfaction that we are all working towards the same objective: establishing procedures which are fast and effective – this is very important – but which of course respect the rights of refugee applicants. The presidency will, moreover, continue to make every effort, working in collaboration with the Commission, to meet this objective as soon as possible.
In addition, I welcome the recommendations made in Mr Evans’s report, which seek to flesh out the provisions in the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere conclusions with a view to implementing this common European asylum regime. Our response to this issue has to be a joint one, based on solidarity. Europe needs to toe the same political line where admitting refugees onto its territory is concerned and needs to act together to stamp out the underground activity which this provokes. If we ascertain that procedures are being abused, we obviously need to find solutions to situations of human distress. Europe needs to work along these lines to improve conflict prevention, and also, through its cooperation programmes, to establish better living conditions throughout the world. Organising information campaigns in the countries of origin should make it possible to combat illegal immigration, but also to thwart the plans of criminal organisations which are at the origin of this modern form of slavery and which do not hesitate to have recourse to any means, in particular violence and terror, to achieve their ends. Exploiting these flows of refugee applicants for criminal purposes is an additional concern for the whole of the European Union and it is our duty to respond to this by adopting emergency measures to act as a deterrent.
It was with this in mind that we raised the issue of trafficking in human beings during the open debate with the accession countries at the Council meeting of 28 September and decided on measures to take in this field by adopting operational conclusions. This package of measures can and must range from measures to protect victims to police-related measures such as reinforcing checks at Europe’s current and future external borders, while safeguarding the possibility for those who are fleeing persecution to find asylum in our countries. Finally I agree that we need to draw a clear distinction in the measures which we put in place between asylum-seekers looking for international protection and those who want to enter the European Union for other reasons, which are incidentally sometimes legitimate.
At a time of openness and mobility, this is certainly not about transforming Europe into a 'fortress' but about reflecting on how we can manage immigration in a transparent, realistic and balanced way. I do not have any ready-made answers to these questions; instead we have elected to organise – in collaboration with the European Parliament and the Commission – a European Conference on Migration, which will be held on 16 and 17 October in Brussels. I should like, Mr President, to take advantage of the fact that this event will soon be upon us to thank you for the considerable support which this Parliament has given us in organising this meeting, which is, I believe, unprecedented, and which will bring together expert observers of these phenomena which are a real problem in today's society. The Brussels hemicycle of the European Parliament is a prestigious venue and symbolises the fruitful collaboration between the European institutions, which, on an issue such as immigration, is quite obviously vital.
In addition, I hope that many Members of this Parliament will attend the conference, thus fostering a rich and productive debate. This event, to which we will have the honour of welcoming ministers, senior officials from international institutions and politicians, will provide an opportunity to hold an in-depth political debate on migratory flows, the issues at stake and their consequences. It will allow us to get a general idea of the way in which migratory flows should be addressed within a common European policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples