Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.5.3-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking you for also giving me the opportunity to take part in this annual debate. I am here to report on developments on issues concerning asylum and immigration. As you are well aware, we are now in a very intensive phase in which we are moving towards increased harmonisation of Member States’ asylum and immigration policy.
During the year the Council has also held other important and valuable discussions. On the question of minimum conditions for reception of asylum seekers, the Council held theoretical discussions on a number of important issues, including access to the labour market, the right to free movement in the territory and area of application. We are now looking forward to the Commission’s proposal which is expected to be presented shortly.
The Council has also addressed two proposals, one directive and the framework decision on common rules for combating trafficking in human beings and assisting people to reside illegally in our countries. The discussions concerned a number of theoretical issues, namely a humanitarian clause, the minimum punishment and the scope of criminal law.
At the Council meeting of 30 November – 1 December 2000 a French initiative was discussed to harmonise economic sanctions as part of the carrier’s liability. At that time we were not able to achieve political agreement on the proposal. The Swedish Presidency is currently investigating conditions for achieving political agreement. I am well aware of Parliament’s position on these issues and we will naturally be taking this into account in our continued work.
Other important questions are more definite and more comparable statistics and the Commission proposal on the rights of third country nationals who are long-term residents of a Member State.
More wide-ranging discussions have also been held at several informal meetings of the Council of Ministers. In Lisbon we discussed, among other things, how we are to follow up the Tampere Summit on the basis of the Commission’s scoreboard. In Marseilles the question of migration to Europe in the long term was in focus. And in Stockholm we discussed how we can make work on implementing the Tampere Conclusions more efficient and how we – on the basis of the Commission’s report on asylum – are to consolidate our work to develop a common asylum system in Europe.
Questions concerning asylum and immigration are close to our citizens and often arouse strong feelings. During the past year, on several occasions, we have seen pictures of tragedies in conjunction with people attempting to enter our countries. This makes great demand of us to design a common policy which will enable us to deal with the pressure of migration into the EU Member States as quickly as possible. We must take responsibility for refugees and others who need protection in our countries. We must also have rules which make it easier to exchange visits and which allow a certain amount of other immigration. It is important that we have a modern immigration policy where we work to eradicate the fundamental causes of involuntary migration, prevent illegal immigration, guarantee protection to those who require it and are able to provide fair treatment of those immigrants who have permanent residence in our countries. This is precisely what the Tampere Conclusions are about.
It is therefore important that we view the work of harmonising the asylum and immigration policy of the Member States on the basis of a holistic approach. During the Swedish Presidency proposals from the Commission concerning asylum will be on the Council table and the same is also true of the majority of the proposals in the field of immigration and visas. We will therefore have a chance to see the whole picture more clearly, which is necessary to obtain a well-balanced common policy. This does not mean that we will not attempt to agree on the proposals on the Council’s table as quickly as possible. However, this will take place within the framework of the visions and the strategy adopted in the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere Conclusions.
The conditions for immigration to our countries change over time. I therefore look forward to the upcoming Belgian Presidency’s focus on the question of the immigration of labour to the Union. This is a question which I believe will come to be all the more important in the coming years.
Regarding the written questions I have to answer, I will begin with that concerning the results which can be reported up to today’s date from the membership negotiations with candidate countries in terms of the area of freedom, security and justice and the forms in which the Council wishes to continue the negotiations, particularly on Chapter 24. Negotiations on this chapter opened for the Luxembourg group at the end of the Portuguese Presidency while they have not yet begun for the Helsinki group. A draft for a common negotiating position for five of the Helsinki countries is expected by the beginning of May. A revised draft is expected by mid-June for the Luxembourg countries – all according to the schedule of the Commission. Negotiations on this chapter will not close for any country during the Swedish Presidency.
During February and March the Commission carried out technical consultations with all candidate countries affected, with the aim of examining the regulations and ironing out any question marks. According to the Commission’s schedule, an updated negotiating position for the Luxembourg countries will be available in June. For the Helsinki countries the first draft will be complete during May.
There is no doubt that these questions belong at European level. Work to develop a common asylum and immigration policy is important for several reasons. It will contribute to creating an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU. Furthermore, asylum seekers and others wishing to live in our countries will know that they will receive an equal reception and an equal assessment of their reasons whatever Member State they apply to. This would also enable us to distribute responsibility more evenly between Member States. We will jointly be able to confirm international undertakings and values such as solidarity, human rights and legal protection. In this work the UNHCR plays a very important advisory role.
Nobody can be unaware that enlargement is one of the Swedish government’s three most important priorities. It is a historic challenge and an historic opportunity. Primarily it is about building a basis for peace, freedom and democracy throughout Europe. We have promised to do what we can such that in the coming months we will be able to contribute to paving the way for a political breakthrough in the enlargement negotiations.
This also concerns to a large extent the field of justice and home affairs, which, after all, is one of the cornerstones of the entire negotiation process. A state based on the principles of a state governed by law is a precondition for membership of the Union.
Today nobody can say how the negotiations on justice and home affairs will proceed in practice. This is, in fact, the first time ever that actual negotiations have been carried out in this area ahead of enlargement of the Union. However, one thing is already clear: besides the requirements made by the formal regulatory framework, there are high expectations of a more practical nature. We place great emphasis on the candidate countries taking concrete steps to achieve both the administrative capacity and the implementation of the legislation adopted.
The candidate countries are responsible for maintaining the rate of the adaptation work such that it is possible to achieve acceptable negotiation solutions. We Member States have a responsibility to assist the candidate countries in this respect. The Swedish Presidency considers it important to involve the candidate countries in EU cooperation at an early stage. What is known as the pre-accession pact against organised crime and the horizontal Phare programmes on asylum, immigration, visas and border controls are good examples of candidate countries and Member States already working together at this stage. A trusting relationship between us and an understanding of the conditions and situation under which the other is operating are fundamental preconditions for successful cooperation in the future.
Therefore we have also invited representatives of the candidate countries to a number of different meetings and seminars during our presidency. Most recently the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of the Member States and candidate countries met at an informal meeting on 16 March. Here discussion centred around how we can strengthen mutual practical cooperation before the countries join. On point after point we were able to see that cooperation has already begun and that the foundations have now been laid as to how we can strengthen this cooperation further.
The second question I have to answer concerns which measures the Council is planning to create a common immigration policy and the deadlines laid down for this.
The EU’s immigration policy partly covers immigration based on human needs for protection and partly covers immigration which takes place, for example, to reunite divided families or because people wish to obtain better economic conditions or a good education. Immigration policy in the narrow sense, however, excludes the immigration which can be seen as concerning people’s need for protection; this is addressed within the framework of asylum policy.
There are already a number of non-binding legal instruments which were adopted within this field of policy before this policy area was transferred to community law. The first step towards harmonising national law was taken under Title VI. Work has since continued and the old legal instruments will gradually be replaced by instruments in community law. At the moment, for example, the right to family reunification is being addressed. The presidency plans to achieve political agreement on this proposal in the next six months.
Furthermore, during March 2001 the Commission has adopted a proposal for a directive on the status of third country nationals who have been resident in a Member State for a long period. An important aspect of this proposal is the right to settle and work in another Member State. Preliminary discussion of the proposal will begin during the Swedish Presidency.
A directive on conditions for entry and residence for the purpose of paid employment and self employed economic activity will be presented in the first six months of 2001. This is a directive which will be particularly interesting in the light of the debate begun in the Union in view of Member States’ increased need for labour. This will continue during autumn 2001 when the Belgian Presidency will organise a seminar on the subject. Furthermore, during spring 2001, the Commission will submit a proposal on conditions for entry and residence for the purpose of study or vocational training and a proposal concerning unpaid work.
There is no doubt as to where we are heading. The goals and action plans have been laid down in Amsterdam, Vienna and Tampere, as has the Commission’s scoreboard. The Commission has worked intensively and many proposals have been presented in the past year. It is now up to us in the Council to take this work further, and your opinions are important in this respect.
The on-going work clearly shows that we within the EU are operating an active immigration policy. The basic principle of this policy must be that the people who are granted the right of entry and residence and who have resided legally in a Member State should largely have the same rights and obligations as EU citizens. This is also clear from the Conclusions of the Tampere Summit. These also state that an important part of the Union’s policy in this field is effective handling of immigration in all its aspects and cooperation with countries of origin is to constitute an important part of this work.
The final question concerns whether the Council considers it likely that number-based cost allocation between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers will be introduced within the framework of a common asylum policy. The question of the extent to which the allocation of responsibility is to be part of the common European asylum policy can be answered from two different standpoints, firstly, from a perspective focusing on specific proposals for directives and secondly, on a more general perspective concerning the allocation of responsibility as a result of asylum policy.
The Treaty of Amsterdam lays down the basis for creating a common asylum system and the question of allocation of responsibility between EU Member States is set out in Article 63.2 (b). This Article states that the Council must “promote a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons.” This intention was also confirmed by the Heads of State or Government in Tampere.
Let me also state that on 28 September last year the Council adopted the European Refugee Fund whose aim is to promote the allocation of responsibility within the EU, both structurally and in emergency situations. We also have the proposed directive on temporary protection in the event of mass influx of displaced persons, which includes a chapter concerning solidarity, in other words measures which will facilitate the allocation of responsibility between Member States, which is something that the Member States also emphasise highly.
The goal for the legislative work which is currently underway with great intensity is to create a common European asylum system which can lead to greater predictability and justice for the individual and the asylum seeker, who will come to receive equal treatment in all Member States. I believe that such a common system will lead in a natural way to a more balanced allocation of responsibility between EU Member States.
Finally, at your request, I will take a current example of needless human trafficking, which once again shows that we have to act quickly.
This concerns the sinking of the vessel “East Sea” outside the French town of San Raphael in February with around 1 000 asylum seekers. The event is now being investigated by the French authorities, and any consequences for those responsible will be issued under French law.
Parliament has submitted a wish that the Council issue a statement on this event. However, the Council as an institution can hardly issue such a statement in a case which primarily concerns a national government. At the same time it is important that we within the Union demonstrate unanimity in our efforts to combat this type of organised crime. It is therefore important that this is reflected in our assessment of the criminality of these actions.
The Council is working hard to draw up common provisions on the framework for criminal law against those who assist illegal entry and residence. The Council is seeking an acceptable text which makes a clear difference between trafficking in human beings which exploits vulnerable people on the one hand and the work of known voluntary organisations and others acting out of humanitarian or non-profit making motives on the other. I wish to emphasise that there is great support among Member States for our not criminalising actions carried out for humanitarian reasons.
In this context, I also wish to state that the Council has already developed an early warning system which makes it possible for Member States to inform each other of potential flows of refugees. The candidate countries are also providing information for this system.
During the year the Council has passed decisions on a number of issues concerning asylum and immigration. The European Refugee Fund was adopted at a meeting of the Council of Ministers on 28 September 2000. The Member States have applied for funding from this fund for 2000 and 2001 for various projects focusing on reception, integration and repatriation.
Other measures which the Council is working on to combat illegal immigration are the directive on carrier liability, which is not to be seen as an isolated instrument but as part of a larger and more wide-ranging policy. The Council is also investigating the opportunity of establishing a network of liaison officers.
In my opinion, the most effective way of preventing illegal immigration is to work together with the countries which currently act as transit countries. By strengthening their asylum system we will all contribute to reinforcing the opportunities for protecting refugees and to ensuring that these countries become less interesting to human traffickers.
In the long term, dealing with the underlying causes of involuntary migration is the only way to avoid the tragedies involved in human trafficking. Thus it is very important that we employ the holistic approach on which the entire harmonisation process is based.
The Council has also passed two decisions linked to the Dublin Convention. On 11 December 2000 the Eurodac Regulation was adopted. We hope this will contribute to a more efficient application of the Dublin Convention. At the last meeting of the Council on 15 – 16 March, the Council was also able to pass the decision that Norway and Iceland be linked to the Dublin Convention and Eurodac. We now look forward to the Commission’s proposal for a community law instrument which will replace the Dublin Convention.
At the former Council meeting the Council was able to adopt the Visa Regulation which means that we will now have completely harmonised rules regarding which countries’ citizens are to be exempt from the requirement for a visa and to which countries this requirement is to apply in the future. Under the regulation Bulgaria, Hong Kong and Macao and at a later stage also Romania will be transferred to the list of countries which do not require a visa.
I hope that – before the Swedish Presidency is over – we will be able to add to this list of decisions on Community rules directives on temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on the right to family reunification.
When it comes to temporary protection, experience from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo show that we have to take joint, united responsibility next time the Union receives a massive influx of displaced persons.
The question of family reunification is also important. We must be able to give everyone resident in our countries the chance to live with their immediate family. We also hope to be able to reach agreement at the Council meeting in May on mutual recognition of expulsion orders."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples