Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.3.2-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, by way of introduction to my speech, I would like to thank most sincerely all the shadow rapporteurs from all the groups. Thanks to the work we have carried out together, we can send a strong signal in this highly sensitive field. I would also thank the Commission for its support, which was particularly welcome.
It is vital that our countries offer an appropriate welcome to foreign students, just as it is vital to have a common policy on this welcome. In this way we can contribute in a positive manner to the training of future executives in third countries and increase cooperation with these countries in terms of education in order to meet the challenge of the internationalisation of teaching.
This proposal for a directive would make it possible to achieve significant progress that we can all support. We would point out that a legal basis has at last been provided for volunteers. We would also point out that this instrument might enable us to catch up with the United States, where residential study programmes are broadly encouraged and facilitated. We are entering into a strategy that aims to increase cooperation with third countries in terms of teaching as set out, for example, in the
programme.
The votes in committee allowed a few clarifications to be made and I shall now cite some of these. We would call for the introduction into the directive of researchers, who are no longer students but do not carry out paid work. We would also emphasise that we wanted to contribute to the fight against brain drain from South to North. Receiving third-country nationals for study purposes must not lead to an increase in brain drain from these countries.
We would similarly like to see an improvement in procedural guarantees and we therefore propose reducing the deadline for notifying applicants of decisions on applications for admission or renewal from 90 days to 60 days. We also propose greater flexibility concerning the student residence permit. Where the study programme is shorter than one year but longer than nine months, like many programmes, it would be a shame not to grant a one-year residence permit to enable students to work during the holidays preceding or following the study programme in order to earn some of the money required for their stay, or to improve their knowledge of their host country for a few weeks.
The proposal for a directive grants students and unpaid researchers the possibility of working for a maximum of 10 to 20 hours per week. This right is essential in order to allow third-country nationals to boost their income in order to live decently. Furthermore, with regard to unpaid researchers, I believe it is very important for trade union representatives to be informed of their specific situation in order to be able to monitor compliance with the provisions of the directive. Withholding the right to work in the first year of residence or withdrawing the right to work if students do not make sufficient progress in their studies is unjustifiable and would tend to encourage illegal employment and exploitation of these nationals. Where there is insufficient progress in studies, attested to by the teaching establishment, the Member State could possibly have the option of reducing the number of working hours so that the student could devote more time to their studies. That is why I believe the amendment tabled to that effect to be satisfactory.
We have the concerns of some Member States about the possible effects of the right to mobility and the right to work granted to students. I understand these concerns, but the proposal for a directive itself contains responses to this, in particular with regard to the mobility of students, which is very clearly defined, with specific conditions, in Article 7. Thus, the proposed directive does not apply to the mobility of students wishing to exchange student status for immigrant worker status. This status, granted by a working residence permit, is the subject of the Terrón i Cusí report that we adopted in plenary last February. A change in status from student to immigrant worker is of course possible, but is outside the scope of the directive in question.
We would point out that the Commission is simultaneously for an open policy with regard to the admission of students from third countries, in accordance with the wishes of the Member States, and for a policy of firmness with regard to persons or networks which voluntarily abuse the system. I therefore believe, ladies and gentlemen, that we should seize the opportunity to send a strong message to the Council calling for it swiftly to reach an agreement on this important matter in order to ensure a welcome that is worthy of our Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Erasmus World"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples