Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-04-Speech-1-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020204.5.1-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, this proposal implements one of the most important commitments of the October 1999 Tampere Summit on justice and home affairs. This called for the legal status of long-term legally resident third-country nationals to be approximated to that of Member State nationals, so that they have a set of uniform rights as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens. Thus its objective is that immigrants or refugees who have been legally resident for at least five years should be given EU long-term residence status.
This proposal self-evidently does not cover people who are illegally present in the European Union. Nor does it apply to persons who are temporarily resident, such as students or those granted temporary protection. In view of the hesitations in some quarters, not least in some parts of the Council, it is important to stress that the EU is merely drawing out the logic of Member States having given some immigrants a legal right to stay long term. It is only adding an EU dimension.
This EU dimension consists of social and legal justice inspired by the fundamental provisions of the EU Treaties, and hard-headed self-interest for the European economy and society. There are estimated to be up to 20 million people living legally in the European Union who have not taken, or who have not been permitted to take, citizenship of the Member State in which they live. One thinks of Turkish citizens in Germany, North Africans in France as two major communities. But there are eligible communities of a myriad of nationalities in all Member States. In my own, the United Kingdom, the
last week estimated that half of the 2 million Muslims living there are foreign nationals. Most of these would have been Commonwealth immigrants arriving in the 1950s and 1960s. I will return to the UK position later.
My wish to be rapporteur for this report stems partly from my commitment to combating racism. The fair treatment and active integration of third-country nationals, accompanied by measures to prevent discrimination, will assist in the fight against racism and xenophobia. This becomes all the time more, not less, important. It is strongly in the social and economic interests of the EU to integrate such people, and hypocritical, in the light of other EU policies, for us not to do so. There is great concern about the alienation of some immigrant communities and their social and economic disadvantage. There are also worrying reports of increased incidents of racially motivated harassment and hostility, especially since 11 September.
The best means to counter all these factors is to ensure that the immense contribution of immigrants is facilitated, recognised and insisted upon. Rights equal to those of EU citizens in areas such as employment, education and social protection will enhance their economic contribution. Other measures would in addition enhance social integration. I draw attention to Amendments Nos 33 to 35, which I authored, on equal access to legal proceedings, participation in local life and voting rights, but I should immediately state that the new ELDR Amendment No 56 is intended to replace Amendment No 34, in order to clarify that it means participation in local community life, for instance in neighbourhood forums, and that Amendment No 35 is only aspirational in encouraging Member States to give local and European voting rights. The Green Group has re-tabled several of my original amendments that got voted down in committee. To be consistent, the ELDR will vote for them.
Let me come to the delicate task of trying to get a balance in the vote on amendments so that all parts of this House can support this report. I should like to appeal to the Right to accept that a reasonable outcome would consist in taking some of their points, but not all of them. Thus a reference to the Council anti-terrorism measures in assessing threats to security is acceptable, but some of those go too far. In practical terms Amendment No 82 is acceptable, but not Amendment No 9. While it is acceptable to mention acquisition of knowledge of the host language as being fundamental to social integration, it goes too far to insist that this is a criterion for granting of EC residence status.
I appeal to the Left not to let objections on points of detail obscure the big picture, so that we fulfil Parliament's long-held commitment to legal rights for third-country nationals. It is regrettable that the UK is opting out of this measure. Not only will this be socially unjust to UK residents, but it will also make the UK less attractive to talented professionals, a point made by business interests.
I urge Parliament to rally to a consensus on this balanced and reasonable proposal. I also urge the Spanish Presidency to reach agreement in the Council as a demonstration of the seriousness of its commitment to social integration, and also to labour mobility, as will be called for again in the Barcelona Summit. We have 20 million residents who, by definition, are mobile. It would be hypocritical of us to deny them the right to move around the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples