Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-04-Speech-1-069"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020204.5.1-069"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Commission I should like to thank the rapporteurs, Baroness Ludford and Mrs Kessler, for the detailed work that they have presented to the European Parliament today. In our view, the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents in the territory of a Member State is a fundamental aspect of drawing up a common immigration policy. The status of long-term residents puts admission policies in a long-term perspective, providing third-country nationals who wish to do so the guarantee of being able to reside for a long time in their State of reception. This status, as the Commission proposes it, would give these people the legal security necessary to be able to integrate successfully into European societies. The objective that was declared in Tampere and reiterated in Laeken is to guarantee legal immigrants equal treatment and ensure that they have comparable rights and obligations to those of the European Union’s own citizens.
Furthermore, this proposal is also intended to regulate the travel of various categories of people that have a legitimate interest in remaining for a period of between three and six months within the border-free area without their situation being equated with immigration in the true sense of the word. Examples of these are tourists, investigators, musicians on tour, individuals on family visits, and those undergoing hospitalisation and convalescence. The introduction of a specific travel permit that allows travel for a maximum period of six months, whilst not spending more than three months in the territory of the same Member State is planned for these categories of people, which complies fully with the letter of the Treaty.
Most of the proposals for amendments featured in Mrs Kessler’s report are designed to explain and clarify the content of our proposal. With regard to the issue of the legal instrument, the choice proposed is for a regulation rather than a directive. Where all these proposals are concerned, the Commission supports any solution that ensures a positive response from the Council. The only point on which we do not agree with the proposal by Mrs Kessler concerns Amendment No 5 on movement within border-free areas with a long-stay visa, which, as Mr Deprez has already emphasised, must be carefully studied. We ask Parliament not to approve it. A long-stay visa is a national visa, which will be issued in accordance with national rules and not in accordance with the rules of Chapter 3, Section 1 of the Schengen Implementing Convention.
From this point of view, I think it would be difficult, where the long-stay visa is concerned, to impose the rules that have been planned for short-stay visas, in other words, by prior consultation. Parliament has already rejected this type of proposal, during the debate on the French initiative on the long-stay visa, and contested the legal basis specifically and the fragmented approach overall. From this very angle, which Parliament had already approved, the Commission also contested the legal basis and declared that it would, in any event, submit a proposal that will also include holders of a long-stay visa and that it would once again pursue the objective of the French initiative, making it part of a broader framework.
I share the concern underlying Amendment No 5, which envisages the possibility of a third-country national travelling immediately within the border-free area. This possibility, however, already exists today because a third-country national can always request a uniform visa, the so-called ‘C’ visa, and move around freely on that basis.
To close, I should like to congratulate the rapporteurs. I hope that the proposals tabled by the Commission receive the across-the-board support of Parliament.
The Commission proposal set the objective of approximating the rights of long-term residents with those of citizens of the Union. We defined the precise and objective conditions to which the access of third-country nationals to the status of long-term resident is subject. The conditions that we proposed were worded in such a way as to assess whether the third-country national has, in fact, established his or her long-term residence in the Member State in question and whether he or she intends to integrate into that country. This person must have lived in this Member State for a sufficiently long period (five years) and have proved that he or she has integrated economically by demonstrating an income and sickness insurance. Furthermore, the person in question must not represent a threat to public order.
The report that you are now discussing also suggests a further condition that will improve the person’s status: a mastery of the language of the country of residence. The Commission considers that language is a criterion for integration and, therefore, language learning must be at the heart of the new integration policies. The Commission is carrying out a study on these policies, in line with its communication of November 2000, and intends to present an initiative on the subject to Parliament and the Council in 2003. Hence my willingness to consider the language issue, which is proposed in an amendment tabled by Mrs Klamt, particularly in its objective dimension and, specifically, when the State of reception provides immigrants with proper conditions for learning.
With regard to adding a new requirement for old age pensions or retirement pensions, I do not feel it would be useful to increase the conditions to be fulfilled in order for the status of long-term resident to be granted. The legislation of most Member States already grants this status automatically, without checking whether the condition of old age pensions has been fulfilled. This matter must be seen as part of a broader and more complex issue that involves the relationship between migrant workers and social security systems in general. And, therefore, the Commission is working on extending the benefits of Regulation No 1408/71, on the coordination of social security systems, to third-country nationals. We also feel that this is the context in which this matter should be addressed.
With regard to some of the proposals for amendments that have been tabled, the Commission takes the view that only when the status of long-term resident is granted will the beneficiary be able to enjoy equal treatment in comparison with the nationals of Member States in practically all areas of socio-economic life. Nevertheless, we are sensitive to the proposals for amendments that have been tabled to enshrine, even before this status is granted, equal treatment in the field of legal proceedings and access to legal remedy as stated in the amendments tabled by Baroness Ludford, and we shall, therefore, incorporate them into the text.
With regard to participation in political life, the Commission is not stating an opinion, because it takes the view that there is no legal basis in the Treaties for us to address this issue.
Some of the amendments that have been proposed reflect particular concern about the issue of public order, a concern that is totally understandable following the events of 11 September. I share the opinion that has been expressed here in the course of the debate, according to which we must avoid making the mistake of creating a dangerous link between immigration and terrorism, which would lead to a type of generalised suspicion towards all third-country nationals. The Commission drafted a working paper on the relationship between safeguarding domestic security and respecting our obligations and international instruments in the field of protection. In light of this document, we have checked all of the clauses on the protection of public order contained in our proposals. The aim of this work was to ensure that the Member States were in a position to effectively protect public order in the face of the threat posed by terrorism. This study led the Commission to review some of its proposals, including this proposal, specifically with regard to two points: we removed the requirement for the threat to be effective before residency status is granted, thereby providing for cases of potential risk as they can already be interpreted in light of the current wording of the Geneva Convention of 1951; we also removed the ban on implementing emergency expulsion measures as long as certain requirements are met. I would say that these two amendments involve the concerns of guaranteeing domestic security and the fight against the terrorism, and that, for this reason, the amendments proposed should not be considered.
Finally, the innovation and the considerable added value of this proposal lie in the right granted to holders of long-term resident status to move to another Member State. In this case, integration works already not only at national level, but also at European level. And those individuals who have resided in a Member State for a certain amount of time will be in an advantageous position in comparison with those who come directly from their country of origin, should they wish to move to another Member State. I think that this is a very important aspect, and should, therefore, not be ignored.
With regard to the proposal on the free movement and the freedom to travel of third-country nationals, for which Mrs Kessler is rapporteur, I should like, first of all, to point out that the proposal contains important aspects in terms of the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. The fact is that the Schengen acquis already contains rules on the movement of third-country nationals. Nevertheless, the conditions for the exercise of this freedom to travel are not always transparent and are spread out across various instruments. The Commission shares the European Parliament’s opinion that we must pool together in a single legal instrument all the fragmented elements that define this freedom to travel. The proposal, therefore, lays down the conditions that enable third-country nationals to move around freely whether or not they are subject to visa requirements, whether they have residency papers or have a long-term visa, whilst they are waiting for residency papers to be issued."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples