Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.3.2-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first like to thank Mrs Roure, the rapporteur, for her hard work. In particular, I should like to pay tribute to the great effort she made to reach a consensus across the political groups.
Nonetheless, it is certainly the case that unpaid research and vocational training could be dealt with in a similar way.
As stated previously, this Commission initiative supplements others regulating immigration for reasons of employment, self-employment or otherwise. It also supplements the directive on family reunification. In so doing it contributes to approximation of national legislation in this area, as recognised at the Tampere European Council.
Students enjoy ever-greater mobility. They are always on the go, and third-country student exchanges certainly contribute to our cultural enrichment. It would therefore also be beneficial to promote exchange visits by European Union students to third countries, although this is not the aim of this directive. It is undoubtedly beneficial for Europe if third-country students undertake part of their studies here. Europe certainly gains, but it is also important to ensure those students receive the best training so that they will be able to make a useful contribution to the development of their countries of origin.
Whenever there is discussion of immigration from developing countries it is always stated that promoting growth and development is the best way of combating illegal immigration. I therefore share the concern expressed by the rapporteur. I believe the European Union must grant entry to immigrants wishing to study here. It is however essential for those students to return to their countries of origin on completion of their studies. They should be able to put the knowledge they have acquired to good use. We must not be party to creaming off the most able individuals from developing countries.
Turning to the entry requirements we are currently considering, namely specific requirements to regulate immigration for study purposes or for volunteering, we should take account of the circumstances of each Member State. This is stated in the Commission’s proposal. A monitoring system is called for, to help combat illegal trafficking networks and exploitation in the workplace. Consequently, I support the Commission’s proposal to grant Member States authority to order the expulsion of a migrant for reasons of public order, or to refuse to renew a residence permit. Immigration for study purposes needs to be regulated to prevent ghost centres from springing up. The latter could then set up illegal immigration networks.
It is important to ascertain that the higher education or vocational training institutions are legally recognised. In addition, these centres should be in a position to guarantee quality learning for the students. In the case of apprentices, it is also important to ensure that they can gain practical experience in specialised centres or companies. Care should be taken to ensure that entry permits for apprentices do not become a cover for illegal employment. The centres need to be properly equipped too.
Turning to residence permits, it is certainly appropriate to be able to renew a residence permit for student exchanges when all the conditions have been met. This would allow students to complete more than one academic year in the same institution. The period of residence granted could even exceed the duration of the studies, though as Mrs Roure stated, a limit must nonetheless be set. My group tabled an amendment providing for a period of residence of one year if the higher education course was of nine months’ duration. That is the usual length of an academic year
In addition, safeguards or restrictions applying to students who fail to make satisfactory progress in their studies must also be put in place. Failure to do so would amount to opening the floodgates to students whose sole intention was to come to work. There would be little incentive to make good progress on the courses of study. My group has therefore also tabled an amendment allowing Member States to reduce the period in which students may work if they do not make satisfactory progress in their studies.
The rapporteur has included in the report a number of amendments aimed at ensuring that this directive covers third-country nationals who are unpaid researchers. I am not opposed to the idea. It might however be appropriate to have a specific Commission initiative on the subject."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples