Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-11-Speech-3-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040211.1.3-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, this annual debate is not exactly the same as all the others, because it is taking place at a historically important juncture. Ten new Member States will soon be welcomed into the Union, we are in the process of negotiating a new Constitutional Treaty, and we are approaching the end of the European Parliament’s term, as well as the end of the period set by the Treaty of Amsterdam for laying the foundations of an area of freedom, security and justice. I therefore wish to congratulate Mr Ribeiro e Castro not only on the rigour and quality of his preparation for this debate, but also on the way in which he has approached it. What he has presented is not only a balance-sheet of one year’s developments but also gives a more wide-ranging view of what has been achieved in this parliamentary term. The Commission, for its part, regardless of what I say now, will contribute to this balance-sheet by means of a communication that it will present to the Council and to Parliament in June of this year, when we will present an exhaustive assessment of what has and what has not been achieved in accordance with the Tampere programme and the Amsterdam Treaty. In this assessment, we will also set out some ideas on potential bases for a Tampere II programme in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.
On judicial cooperation in civil matters, I fully agree with what the minister, Mr McDowell has just said. The Commission’s assessment is broadly satisfactory and, curiously enough, it is probably in the field of civil judicial cooperation, rules on contractual disputes, on extra-contractual obligations, on family relations and on regulating parental power that some of the decisions that this Parliament and this Council take have the greatest influence on the daily life of all European citizens, but the media normally pays these scant attention. It is much more newsworthy to talk about crime than about the everyday lives of normal people. It is, however, precisely in the everyday lives of normal people that most progress has been made under the Treaty of Amsterdam and under the Tampere programme and I sincerely hope that, by the end of this parliamentary term, we will be able to surmount any difficulties in approving the directive on compensating victims of crime.
As regards the external dimension, I wish to emphasise the fact that the Commission asked the Council for a mandate that would enable the Community to formally sign up to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, in order better to ensure that the process of including judicial cooperation in civil matters within the Community framework is consistent with what is being done under the Hague Conference conventions.
Last but not least, the issue of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. I believe that the balance-sheet of this parliamentary term is a positive one. Positive in the sense that, in practical terms, the framework decisions on all types of European crime set out in the Treaty have been approved, with one exception: racism and xenophobia, which is still proving problematic for the Council. Once again, however, I wish to emphasise that the Commission has remained true to the principle that the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters is the principle of the mutual recognition of judgments, the best example of which is the European arrest and surrender warrant which, like Mr McDowell, I hope is fully established in all fifteen Member States by the end of the first quarter of this year and is in force in the candidate countries as of 1 May of this year.
The Commission will soon present a framework decision on procedural safeguards and we are convinced that the initiative we will be taking in June this year to present a framework decision on minimum rules for data protection, under the third pillar, will be equally significant. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters and strengthening mechanisms for police and judicial cooperation in the fight against crime must, at the same time, be accompanied by rules for minimum procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings in all Member States and for the protection of privacy and personal data in this field.
It is true, Mr Ribeiro e Castro, that police cooperation involves cooperation more at the operational level than at legislative level, where I believe the Convention on the future of Europe has been proven right to emphasise that the ‘convention’ instruments in this area do not work: the amendments to the Europol Convention are still awaiting ratification by most Member States; the Convention on mutual judicial assistance, signed in May 2000, has still not been ratified by all EU Member States and, consequently, has not entered into force. Operational cooperation, however, has improved and it is crucial, if Europol is to be able to perform its duties, that Member State police forces have confidence in Europol and, above all, that information is exchanged on an ongoing basis on the forms of transnational crime.
Finally, Mr Ribeiro e Castro, I fully share your concern that it is crucial to inform the citizens about what is done. The Commission has launched awareness-raising campaigns on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on some of the legislative instruments that we have adopted and which might have a more direct impact on citizens’ lives. To be quite honest, however, I think the most reliable snapshot will be provided by the elections to the European Parliament, embodied by the Members of this Parliament – and you can pride yourselves on what you have achieved in this parliamentary term in the field of Justice and Home Affairs – since these are the best interpreters of the information that the citizens have the right to know, because they prove that European democracy works and that the issues of concern for the daily lives of the citizens are taken seriously by the bodies of the European Union, starting with their legitimate representatives, the Members of the European Parliament.
(
)
In shall attempt to respect the order in which the honourable Member raised his concerns: in the field of immigration and asylum, the Commission has always sought to weave together the four main strands of this policy, as defined in the Treaty of Amsterdam: regulating the flows of legal immigration, promoting the integration of third-country nationals into European societies, effectively combating illegal immigration and defining a common asylum policy and extending partnership with third countries in order to regulate migration flows.
As regards legal immigration, the Commission has submitted several proposals to create the necessary legal framework. The Council has already approved the proposal for a directive on family reunification and on the legal status of third-country citizens who are long-term residents. I hope that by the end of this parliamentary term, we will also be in a position to adopt the proposal on victims of trafficking in human beings who cooperate with the authorities and who, therefore, have the right to a residence permit and also the proposals on allowing third-country students and researchers into the European Union.
One disappointment that I would want to express concerns the problems in reaching, together with the Member States, a common platform for managing migration flows involving legal immigration, or what is known as ‘admission for work purposes’. In this field, there is deadlock in Council, the Commission proposal clearly does not have the support of the Member States and the Commission will return to this issue when we present, at some point in this six-month period, the study we were asked to draw up on the link between legal and illegal immigration.
In the field of integration, the steps that have been taken following on from Thessaloniki are to be welcomed and we are now implementing preparatory projects for a broader strategy for a specific European programme to integrate immigrants into European societies.
As regards illegal immigration, the Commission has presented three action plans that have been accepted by the Council and are now being implemented: the first concerns the fight against illegal immigration; the second, the common management of external borders and the third, a Community policy for the return or repatriation of illegal immigrants. I am also hopeful that the Agency for monitoring and operational coordination at external borders will soon be approved and the Commission intends to present a new legal instrument, which is the revision of a common Schengen manual on best practice for external border controls.
At the same time, security issues have assumed considerable importance following the events of 11 September 2001. The Commission has already presented proposals on stepping up the security of some fundamental documents, such as visas and residence permits, by introducing biometric data and will, in a month’s time, present its proposal on including biometric data in the passports of EU citizens. Steady progress is also being made on developing the visa information system (VIS).
With regard to repatriation policy, the Commission is basically proposing, in the short term, actions on two fronts: one involving financial support, which still has to be discussed, and another on an initiative for minimum standards for repatriation procedures. As the President-in-Office of the Council has already said, important legal instruments have been adopted in the field of asylum: temporary protection, minimum reception standards, the Dublin II regulation and the implementation of the Eurodac system, and the European Refugee Fund, which came to the end of its first phase having mobilised around EUR 146 million in the last four years. The Commission is working actively with the United Nations High Commissioner on new ideas for asylum policy, particularly with a view to ensuring the more ordered and organised entry of refugees into the European Union, and the possibility of applying for asylum outside EU territory and also in order to increase protection in the regions in which crises originate. There are, however, two fundamental points relating to asylum policy that are missing. I am referring to the directive on asylum procedures and to the directive on qualifying for refugee status and harmonising rules on subsidiary protection. I am pleased, because I know how committed Mr McDowell is to these two instruments being approved during the Irish Presidency, and, consequently, within the deadline set by the Treaty of Amsterdam, so that we can end this parliamentary term with all the instruments needed for the first phase of a European-level common asylum policy having been approved.
The Commission will also present a report in Spring 2004 on the negotiations underway on readmission agreements and we particularly welcome the fact that we have been able to reach agreement with the Council and with Parliament on a financial programme for the period 2004-2008, worth EUR 250 million, to develop a partnership with third countries for the joint management of migration flows."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples