<CHAPTER ID=0>
<SPEAKER ID=1 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Alavanos">
Mr President , I would like to make what I consider to be a very important point .
Yesterday , I came to Strasbourg on Olympic Airways flight 165 from Athens to Frankfurt .
When the plane arrived at Frankfurt airport , it was immediately surrounded by German police .
Nobody spoke anything but German , and we were not allowed to leave the plane without showing our passports to the German police .
I remind you that Greece , as well as Germany and France , are countries that belong to the Schengen area .
<P>
The worst thing is that this was not an exception ; this , I was told , is something that happens systematically at Frankfurt airport when planes arrive from Greece .
As a Member of the European Parliament , where we have so often voted on Schengen , I believe that , although there is legislation for the free movement of people , the fact that , in reality , this legislation is being systematically violated by the German authorities is an insult to , and undermines , our work .
As this concerns the free movement of Members of the European Union , I would like the President of the European Parliament to take the appropriate measures to ensure that we come to Strasbourg in a way that befits people who belong to the European Union and to Schengen .
<SPEAKER ID=2 NAME="President">

Mr Alavanos , I consider that our President shall forward the text of your speech to the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Frankfurt airport authorities so that - and I do not know what the grounds might be for the current practice - we receive at least some sort of explanation or , alternatively , this procedure , which , I agree with you , has very little to do with the Schengen provisions , ceases to be used .
<SPEAKER ID=3 NAME="Hannan">
Mr President , on Monday , in my absence and without any prior notification , Mr Murphy , the leader of the British Socialist Group , raised a question about my involvement in supporting the Danish anti-euro campaign .
He was very careful not to accuse me of anything but has none the less contrived to give the impression that I am somehow under suspicion .
I should like to put on record that my involvement with the Danish referendum has been entirely separate from my work in this House and that I have never infringed any parliamentary rules .
Unlike the Danish " yes " campaign , the " no " campaign cannot rely on taxpayers ' money or subsidies from the European Union .
<P>
It is outrageous that Mr Murphy should have sought to give the impression that I am under investigation when he has failed to produce evidence or even make any allegations against me .
It cannot be right for Members to be subjected to this kind of baseless innuendo .
I would ask you to insist that Mr Murphy either accuse me outright or apologise .
<SPEAKER ID=4 NAME="President">

Mr Hannan , Mr Murphy is , of course , free to decide whether and how to respond to your speech .
<SPEAKER ID=5 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Dupuis">
Mr President , we very frequently complain about the Council 's attitude towards Parliament .
I would like to highlight an incident of a completely opposite nature which took place yesterday during the debate on EU external action priorities .
We had the reports from the President of the Council and the Commissioner followed by a debate took place .
At the end of the debate , due to the presidency 's total lack of flexibility , the President of the Council and Commissioner Patten were not able to respond to the numerous questions which had arisen from quite an intense debate .
Now then , I cannot understand this Parliament for complaining about the Council 's behaviour .
Yesterday , the President of the Council was in the Chamber from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. while the number of Members of Parliament present was not great - and , in actual fact , we prevented both the Council or the Commission from replying to extremely important questions posed by Members .
This does not seem to me to be very polite , and I would go so far as to describe it as verging on the downright rude .
<SPEAKER ID=6 NAME="President">

Mr Dupuis , I doubt that this situation was due to lack of flexibility on the part of the presidency on duty . It is more likely to have been a mistake , a misunderstanding between the Chair at the time and the Council and Commission representatives .
<SPEAKER ID=7 LANGUAGE="DA" NAME="Blak">
Mr President , I am very surprised at what I heard from our British fellow MEP , Mr Hannan , for he presented himself in the Danish media as a Member of the European Parliament .
If he were there as a private individual , he should have let this be known in the Danish campaign .
All things considered , I think Mr Hannan should stay at home in Britain and mind his own business , and leave us to get on with it in Denmark .
We have no use for people like that acting the fool in Denmark .
<SPEAKER ID=8 NAME="Murphy">
Mr President , I do not want to detain the House too long but I think that Mr Hannan protests too much !
I made a very simple request to the President on Monday .
The President agreed to my request and referred the matter to the Quaestors .
But while Mr Hannan is here in the Chamber this morning , perhaps he could give us a guarantee that he will be making a new entry in his declaration of financial interests to say where the money has come from .
The Danish people have a right to know in advance of the referendum on 28 September where the " no " campaign funds have come from .
<SPEAKER ID=9 NAME="President">
Now then , we cannot continue with the debate and we cannot turn this Chamber into an annex to the discussion leading up to the Danish referendum either .
We now know the essence of the issue .
Everyone will do what they think best .
<CHAPTER ID=1>
Right to family reunification
<SPEAKER ID=10 NAME="President">
The next item is the report ( A5-0201 / 2000 ) by Mr Watson , on behalf of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Home Affairs , on the proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification [ COM ( 1999 ) 638 - C50077 / 2000 - 1999 / 0258 ( CNS ) ]
<SPEAKER ID=11 NAME="Watson">
Mr President , I would like to begin by thanking Mrs Klamt , who was the original rapporteur designated by the committee which I have the honour to chair to look at this issue .
Mrs Klamt did a very considerable amount of work on the proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification .
She deserves the credit for the work that has been done . I wish to congratulate her on that .
<P>
I have inherited this particular cornucopia as chairman of the committee because Mrs Klamt felt at the end of the votes at committee stage that she could no longer support the text as it stood and therefore I am presenting it to the House today .
<P>
I would like to commend the European Commission on what is an extremely well argued and well presented report , drawn up in record time considering the relative lack of resources of the departments concerned and the demands laid down at the European Council in Tampere last year .
The Commission has come forward with an excellent draft directive which will permit third-country nationals legally resident in a Member State of the Union to reside in another Member State as is required if a true area of freedom , security and justice is to be established .
<P>
The Commission has said , quite rightly in my view , that the goal of zero immigration mentioned in past Community discussion was never realistic and sought instead to put forward realistic proposals for the protection of the rights of third-country nationals in accordance with the many international treaties that have been signed by Member States , such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international covenants of 1966 on civil and political rights and on economic and social rights .
<P>
Very clearly , the importance of legal immigration is recognised .
The importance of the family as a unit is also recognised and the importance of making a success of the integration of third-country nationals residing lawfully in EU Member States is the whole basis of these proposals .
<P>
We have in my committee considered a number of contentious areas , not least the question of the right to bring in ascending relatives .
The Commission proposal quite clearly recognises the difference of legal treatment between descending and ascending relatives .
It is evident that , in the context of the international legal framework , mention must be made of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child .
This convention requires states to ensure that the child is not separated from the parents .
There is no similar convention dealing with ascending relatives , but it is clearly the case that if we wish to live up to our humanitarian ideals we must provide the opportunity for third-country nationals to bring dependent relatives in the ascending line into their family units .
This has been a matter of some debate within the committee .
I am pleased to see that a number of amendments to the final report have been put forward ; in particular Amendments Nos 18 to 23 , which propose a compromise on this matter .
<P>
May I briefly introduce some of the amendments that the committee 's report puts forward .
Amendment No 3 looks at the need for data and recognises that in order to have an effective evaluation of the situation in the Member States , the Commission will need more information from the Member States .
Amendment No 5 deals with relatives from the ascending line .
This has now been overtaken in a sense by the compromise Amendments Nos 18 to 23 .
Amendment No 6 recognises the very real problems that the administrations of the Member States currently have with the workload created by the demands of family reunification .
<P>
Amendment No 9 allows each Member State to introduce more favourable provisions than those set down in the directives , and insists that these new rules will not lower current standards of protection .
Amendment No 11 deals with the grounds on which a Member State may deny the right of entry to a relative , namely on grounds of public policy , domestic security and public health .
Our amendment seeks to insist that any Member State wishing to refuse entry on those grounds provides very clear justification .
<P>
I do not wish to comment on all of the 66 amendments put forward to my report , but I would say that this is a very complicated area .
Parliament had relatively little time to look at it and inevitably not all of the compromises which were necessary to reach a favourable outcome were achieved in committee .
I would therefore urge Members to look carefully at the amendments that have been tabled in plenary to reach the compromises which will allow us to go forward in an effective and humanitarian way .
<SPEAKER ID=12 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Berger">
Mr President , my task as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was a relatively easy one compared with that of the honourable members in the committee responsible , and I would like to congratulate them all on the outcome , even if we do have to discuss a few compromise amendments in plenary today .
<P>
The reason I said that my committee 's task was an easy one , is because the proposed draft directive raises few difficulties from a legal viewpoint , and nor is there a great deal of room for manoeuvre when it comes to framing policy .
I would also like to say how impressed I am with the logistical quality of the draft directive , which certainly cannot be said of all the Commission 's draft directives .
Pursuant to the new Article 63 of the EU Treaty , it is now the Community 's task to settle the matter of family reunification , and the Community must take these measures in accordance with the provisions of international law , in particular the European Convention of Human Rights and the other instruments of international law already mentioned by our committee chairman .
<P>
The right to respect for family life is a universal human right .
It is not divisible and cannot be reserved for EU citizens alone .
This would be a dubious line to take , particularly as we are concurrently working on a European Charter of Fundamental Rights .
<P>
If Community provisions are now to be put in place for family reunification , we also need to close incomprehensible and , in some cases , absurd gaps in the existing legislation .
This particularly applies to the right of EU citizens themselves to live together in their home land with family members originating from a third country and not to be in the position where the only way they can live with them as a family is to avail themselves of freedom of movement and settle in another Member States .
<P>
Therefore this directive is only too welcome from a legal viewpoint , and it is to be hoped that neither Parliament , nor , more importantly , the Council , will make any changes to the substance of the Commission 's original draft .
<SPEAKER ID=13 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Klamt">
Mr President , in principle , everyone agrees that open internal borders make a compelling case for a pan-European , harmonised immigration and asylum policy .
The Commission has put forward the first draft of a legislative initiative in this field , which concerns the right to family reunification .
Unfortunately , it failed to place this draft directive in an overall frame of reference .
What point is there in knowing which family members have the right to enter and reside in the EU , when it is not known what provisions are to be made for which immigrant groups and for which reasons for immigration ?
<P>
In addition , Parliament is expected to vote on a legislative initiative which lacks absolute fundamental principles .
We have neither a joint evaluation of demographic trends , nor do we know what impact this legislative initiative will have on the individual Member States .
Unfortunately , the lack of overall strategy and statistical basis are not the only weak points .
The Commission lumps economically motivated immigration and asylum together .
I take the view that as far as family reunification is concerned , there should be one set of arrangements for asylum seekers and refugees , and one for immigrants .
Different rules must apply to those who have been driven out of their native land than apply to those who emigrate for economic reasons .
<P>
We need to clearly distinguish between asylum seekers and refugees on the one hand , and immigration , i.e. economic migration , on the other .
This will allow for provisions that do justice to the people concerned and the situations they are in .
Many of my proposed amendments have this distinction in view .
<P>
Another problem with the present draft directive concerns the widening of the definition of family .
Grandparents , children over the age of majority and non-married partners should also be entitled to family reunification .
That is where the dilemma lies : there is no overall frame of reference for immigration .
As such , family reunification is currently the only legal channel of immigration .
The proposed sweeping provisions on family reunification are open to uncontrollable abuse .
<P>
Just ask yourselves this question : who will decide , according to which criteria , whether a relationship is bogus , contrived purely for the purposes of immigration ?
That is why quite a few of my proposed amendments call for priority to be given to the core family .
Another cardinal sin committed by the Commission is that its proposal contains no measures whatsoever for integration .
It is not right to bring people to a foreign country without making the necessary provisions for foreign nationals and local people to live together in peace and friendship .
<P>
A final point to be made is that a directive of this kind is paving the way for us to have an objective and constructive discussion on the whole area of immigration .
If people feel they are being overrun by waves of immigrants , then their reaction is one of rejection .
<P>
If we put transparent , enforceable provisions in place , then people will be more inclined to allow foreign nationals to integrate .
By producing moderate and well-considered solutions , not only will we be able to overcome problems such as xenophobia ; we will also be able to tackle the problems associated with having a disproportionate number of elderly people in the European Union .
However , this draft directive seems to be a poor first attempt at this .
Thank you for your attention .
<SPEAKER ID=14 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Terrn i Cus">
Mr President , I am sorry to hear Mrs Klamt 's words .
I wanted to begin by congratulating the Commission and Commissioner Vitorino on this proposal which seems to me to be very complete , well constructed and timely , coming almost a year after the Tampere Summit .
We must clarify today in this Parliament whether we want the immigrants and refugees who live amongst us to do so legally with their families , giving them the opportunity to live a normal life and to integrate fully into our society , or whether we are going to continue to feed the myth that they are provisional co-citizens whose final destiny is to return to the hypothetical homes they came from .
<P>
This issue is so important that we must make an effort to reach a consensus .
All of our groups were in agreement in committee , apart from the PPE Group .
I would like us today to send a message to the people who live amongst us that they can do so with their right to live as a family recognised .
Mr President , this is the intention of my group , although I would also like to ask the Commission , on behalf of my group , to think twice about one aspect included in the current directive .
We have also applied these rules we are debating to people who are under alternative protection .
Unfortunately , the European Union does not have homogenous criteria . There is no harmonised asylum policy .
Therefore , there are very different situations in many countries , and on this minor point I would agree with Mrs Klamt .
<P>
It is not a question of rejecting these people - they have the right to live as families - but of the Commission thinking twice about it and of their being subject to a future directive which would include persons under temporary and alternative protection , while we await the future harmonisation of the Union 's asylum policy .
Otherwise , I congratulate the Commission and I hope that it receives the full support of this House .
<SPEAKER ID=15 NAME="Ludford">
Mr President , the ELDR Group is backing this report as one of the essential building blocks in constructing the area of freedom , security and justice and in following up the Tampere Summit , which rightly made it a priority to establish rights of free movement for legally resident third-country nationals .
This is an injustice which needs remedying .
<P>
Like Mrs Terrn i Cus , I am surprised at the stance of the EPP Group , which normally puts a lot of emphasis on family values and yet today is undermining the family by opposing reunification , which will assist the social integration of these legally resident migrants .
This seems to us perverse .
<P>
To take up some specific points in the report , first of all on the inclusion of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection .
We will wait to hear Mr Vitorino , but it is rumoured that the Commission will accept amendments to take these beneficiaries out .
The ELDR Group would regret that because we think that , like refugees , beneficiaries of subsidiary protection should be in .
They are long-term residents , they are not analogous to beneficiaries of temporary protection .
We will listen to the debate because our overwhelming desire is to get the bones of this proposal through .
<P>
On ascending relatives , we consider that Amendment No 20 is superfluous because there is a general right in Article 9 of the proposal to apply a non-discriminatory means test to all entrants .
However we are willing to look at that if it assists in saving the report .
<P>
It is important to be absolutely clear on unmarried partners .
The proposal will not force Member States to give legal recognition to unmarried partnerships , but if they do they must treat unmarried partners like spouses .
There has been a lot of misinformation on this , not least stirred up by the Conservatives in the United Kingdom - tabloid headlines about outrageous plots by the EU to force the UK to accept refugees ' gay lovers .
That is stirring up homophobic prejudice and I deplore it .
<SPEAKER ID=16 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Ceyhun">
Mr President , we are going to vote on a report today that has caused a political stir in certain EU States .
The Commission and Commissioner Vitorino have done some sterling work here , and I would like , on behalf of my group , to take the opportunity to thank them for it .
<P>
The European Council confirmed , at its special summit in Tampere , that the European Union must ensure that third-country nationals are treated fairly .
The Commission has taken this resolution forward .
This directive is conclusive as it stands , and should be transposed with all haste .
Sadly there were , and still are , reservations against including refugees benefiting from temporary protection in this directive , and against recognising same-sex relationships as the basis for family reunification .
<P>
This debate demonstrates once again that , unfortunately , integration and migration policy is still a controversial issue in the European Union .
There is , after all , a great deal to be considered .
Nevertheless , we must make it possible for people who live apart from relatives who are third-country nationals , to be brought together .
Therefore , in principle , this is an initiative that deserves everyone 's support , particularly where it concerns children , and these self-same children - irrespective of whether they are the offspring of refugees or immigrants - should have a future in the European Union .
<P>
However , opinion is being stirred up against this directive in the political arena .
It is to be hoped that the majority of honourable members will support the directive put forward by the Commission as it stands .
I know that my fellow socialist members are awaiting a statement from Mr Vitorino , in the hope that refugees ' interests will be sacrificed for the sake of this directive , under pressure from quite a number of EU Ministers for Home Affairs .
I regret this decision , and the fact that Ministers for Home Affairs appear to carry more weight in this Parliament than the honourable members , who are expected to act according to their consciences .
<P>
For this reason , I reiterate my call for us to support the Commission 's directive and at last set down a marker for an up-to-date , modern and humane policy of integration .
I hope the Socialists will refrain from making this deal with the Conservatives .
<SPEAKER ID=17 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Sylla">
Mr President , I would like to commend the Commission on its serious and balanced work .
Too often , when we broach the subject of immigration , passions , excesses and political ulterior motives prevent us from reflecting objectively and making progress .
<P>
In dealing in depth with the issue of the right to live as a family , and in defining the precise conditions for its application , the text enables us to hold a real debate .
Far from casting suspicion a priori , as is often the case , on those who wish to live with their spouses and children , the text recognises the legitimacy of such a right even if , in fact , this right must now apply equally to homosexual couples and to all other categories , as the honourable Member has just said , especially in the case of asylum seekers .
<P>
The text also takes into account that nowadays there are several types of families in our society , especially certain forms of cohabitation , and that we cannot therefore discriminate against immigrants who live in the same way .
In recognising this , the text helps to give real meaning to the term ' integration ' .
Through harmonising legislation in Member States , this draft directive will provide protection and legal stability for immigrants and will above all prevent them from being subjected to national political fluctuations .
<P>
I therefore hope that subsequent work by the Commission and Parliament will take its inspiration from this example .
Perhaps we will then be able to talk further on the equality of rights and the often positive contribution made by immigration , in dealing with issues that are vital for integration and the fight against the unemployment , insecure employment , violence and discrimination , of which immigrants are often victim .
<P>
Immigration is not a problem .
Yet we must resolve to talk about the real problems such as the imbalances between the North and the South that often force men and women to flee from poverty .
We must also recognise that the waves of immigrants towards the countries of the European Union have been more or less constant for a couple of decades .
In other words , by implementing restrictive laws , Member States have not succeeded in reducing the overall number of entrants ; they have simply reduced the number of legal immigrants while increasing the numbers of illegal immigrants by declaring them illegal .
<P>
By underpinning these values , this draft directive will not only have positive consequences for immigrants and their families , but it will also be a symbol for refuge and integration .
I sincerely hope that we will be able to follow the same line of conduct in subsequent work .
<SPEAKER ID=18 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Gollnisch">
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , the text that has been presented to us , and in fact the entire immigration policy that is being pursued by European institutions , exhibits a worrying trend .
<P>
Indeed , there would be cause to worry about a certain form of capitalism that imports workers and cuts them off from their families , with all the risks of rootlessness that could give rise to .
But today we have gone well beyond that .
<P>
What were initially nothing more than a temporary work contracts are tending to turn into permanent residence .
What has become permanent for one person is tending to become permanent for that person 's family and friends .
Initially it was just the close family , but now it is the extended family as well .
And we are very well aware that the extended family is extensive , given the social structures of the countries of origin , in which the registration of births , marriages and deaths is sometimes only rather ad hoc .
And then , from the extended family - brothers , cousins , nephews , parents , grand parents - we move on to the polygamous family .
And why favour just family ties ?
From the polygamous family , we move on to cohabitation and soon , as the preceding speaker , Mr Sylla , has just proposed , we will move on to mere homosexual association .
These are the considerable risks resulting from this policy trend .
<P>
We are going to end up with what we are already starting to witness ; a veritable , suicidal immigration of entire populations , organised by Member States and European institutions alike .
This is , quite manifestly , the suicide of Europe .
The only solution worthy of the name is to organise family reunification but to organise it in the country of origin with the support of the policy of cooperation to which end these methods should be employed .

<SPEAKER ID=19 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Hager">
Mr President , whilst expressing my continued dismay at the ongoing prejudice shown towards Austria by the 14 other Member States , I have this to say about the report currently under discussion .
I regret the way in which it was handled in the committee responsible , as this has led to the rapporteur being unable , in the final analysis , to identify with the outcome , causing her to withdraw her name . A rather singular occurrence .
As I see it , constructive and well-founded amendments proposed by the rapporteur - which she has expounded and justified again today , and which I am therefore in a position to refer to - as well as by other members of the committee , were simply swept aside and not handled properly , for reasons of political ideology .
<P>
In assessing this improper conduct , I would refer - on behalf of Austria , among others - to the decision taken by the conference of the heads of provincial governments on 17 May 2000 , whereby all the new Austrian heads of the provincial governments rejected the draft directive in this form , unanimously and in fact right across the political divide .
I am sorry that the committee has behaved in this way , because I believe a sledgehammer approach does the cause more harm than good , particularly in an area as sensitive as this .
<SPEAKER ID=20 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Pirker">
Mr President , Commissioner , the present document , like the report , is a labelling con .
The wording on the outside belies the actual contents of these documents .
We would be delighted to endorse family reunification measures , for this would be deeply humane and would also be key to an integration component , but what we have is something entirely different .
This is about initiating sociopolitical debate on how far the circle of those entitled to family reunification can be extended beyond the core family .
<P>
You include a proposal relating to unmarried partners , whose parents and children would be allowed to join them , according to which , testimonies from the country of origin would be enough to satisfy you as to the authenticity of a relationship , regardless as to how it appears .
This would mean that children or parents joining members here would have the same rights as EU citizens in the educational , employment and social spheres .
The traffickers in human beings and the document forgers will thank those of you who support this proposal , and you can rest assured that the general public 's response will be one of indignation .
<P>
You also include a proposal relating to multiple marriages , i.e. the first wife is to be accepted along with the children and relatives in the ascending line . However , you also make the point in this document that naturally it would be possible to bring another wife and her dependants in , if this were necessary for the sake of the child 's welfare .
This begs the question as to how much wider the door is to be opened to uncontrollable immigration ?
<P>
As far as we are concerned , the proposal under discussion is unacceptable .
It lacks an overall frame of reference , a statistical basis and there is no differentiation . You are also overstepping the mark in respect of the Treaty of Amsterdam , which requires the integration capacity of each of the Member States to be taken into account .
We have no intention of voting for this document unless it includes our amendments and follows our political line .
<P>
( Applause from the right )
<SPEAKER ID=21 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Hazan">
Mr President , after the recent events in Dover , when 29 illegal Chinese immigrants suffocated to death , the tragedy of illegal immigration and the methods of responding to it have become a considerable problem , which the European Union must definitely tackle .
<P>
This problem requires us to work on a particularly sensitive issue , that of shaping and harmonising a European immigration policy . This will be one of the major issues of the twenty-first century .
The European Commission 's draft directive establishing the right to family reunification is perfectly timed , and I would like to congratulate the Commission particularly on this text , which was drawn up under the auspices of Commissioner Vitorino .
<P>
The right to family reunification is crucial to normal family life .
What is more , this right has long existed in the form of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights , according to which all persons have the right to family life .
But this is a particularly sensitive issue in view of the different laws existing in the various Member States , as it can come into conflict with notions of sovereignty .
But that is the gauntlet that has been thrown down to the European Parliament , which must succeed in transcending these differences .
<P>
The draft directive we are being asked to give our opinion on today is , in my view , a text of major importance , and it must receive the firm backing of the European Parliament .
This text holds out real prospects for legal immigration , most of which is family immigration .
As has already been said , this directive is the first example of this type of structure resulting from the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere European Council , which is why it is so important .
<P>
I would also like to point out that the modern world has many advantages , but for certain categories of people , including foreigners , there is a significant risk of exclusion .
It is our duty as European democrats to be particularly diligent in this matter .
<P>
The directive proposed by the Commission enables us to take a major step forward , under conditions that are entirely satisfactory , but with all the necessary guarantees .
There has never been any question of authorising polygamous family groupings , contrary to what I have just heard .
This is utterly false .
Let us remember that this is the first text in the process of integrating the ' justice and internal affairs ' pillar into community policy in the wake of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere European Council last November .
Let us also remember that this is no more and no less than a matter of establishing the right to family reunification and that we must stop seeing family reunification as a privilege .
<P>
As far as we are concerned , what is at stake is the construction of a Citizens ' Europe , something we are hoping and praying for in order to be able to continue to build Europe .
It is up to us to seize this opportunity . Otherwise we will not succeed .
<SPEAKER ID=22 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Krivine">
Mr President , I am of the firm opinion that this draft directive is a major step forward .
That said , restrictive conditions are still being placed on the process of family reunification .
I believe we should be highlighting the fact that , in the final analysis , it is unemployment and insecure employment that should be banned and not the right of immigrants to live with their families only if they can provide evidence of adequate means and a roof over their head .
<P>
For the nationals of a country , society makes progress slowly , but it does make progress , witness the PACS vote in France , but the notion of the family in the case of immigrants is inflexible .
The laws in force provide for the right of residence to be revoked if there is a break-up in the matrimonial household , effectively outlawing divorce , and , as has just been said , homosexual couples are still not recognised .
Under the pretext of combating polygamy , second spouses and their children are condemned to illegality and to even greater dependence .
<P>
Family reunification must be liberated from the archaic conditions that still exist as a result of fanatical immigration control .
In conclusion , Mr Watson 's report has fortunately made real progress following the work in committee on the initial report by Mrs Klamt .
I am bound to say that , when I hear Mr Gollnisch 's racist , reactionary and unacceptable comments , I want to vote for this report .
It is a question of dignity .
<SPEAKER ID=23 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Nassauer">
Mr President , contrary to popular belief and notwithstanding the debate that has taken place here this morning , this directive is not about defining the concept of family , which is generally binding throughout the European Union .
It has far more to do with establishing in precise terms , which third-country family members should be entitled to join relations who are immigrants to the European Union .
<P>
No one would dispute the fact that families have the right to live together .
But what really matters here is where we draw the line as regards family members .
For example , I have a wife and two children , and they have children too . I also have siblings and aunts and uncles .
If I were to count the number of relatives I live in close contact with , that makes 25 all told .
Commissioner Vitorino , if I were to apply for asylum in Portugal , for example , then clearly I would be unable to assert a claim to live there with 25 relatives .
In other words , we must be sensible and draw the line somewhere .
That is the crucial problem we face with this directive .
We must also distinguish between those whose stay in the European Union subject to a time limit , and those who reside here permanently .
I should point out that this draft directive extends family reunification provisions beyond those that have been in force in the Member States to date .
This sends out another signal to would-be immigrants , which will , of course , have major consequences .
<P>
This directive would have very different implications for States with a high proportion of immigrants , such as Austria , Germany and the Benelux States , than it would for States such as Portugal , Finland and others , which do not see very much in the way of immigration .
We cannot endorse this directive as matters stand , because it would lead to a dramatic increase in family reunification , which is one of the main grounds for reunification .
Therefore , Commissioner , with all due respect for your work , I cherish the hope that the Council will decline to give it the unanimous assent it requires .
<SPEAKER ID=24 LANGUAGE="EL" NAME="Karamanou">
Mr President , I would like to begin by warmly congratulating the European Commission and especially Commissioner Vitorino , on its extremely constructive legislative proposal on the issue of family reunification .
At last , Europe is on the move , after decades of zero immigration and , more especially , after so many years of refusal by Europeans to grant third-country nationals residing lawfully in the European Union their fundamental human rights .
<P>
Recognising the right to family life is one of the basic conditions for the integration of refugees and migrants in the social life of the country in which they reside .
Unfortunately , those in this Parliament who extol the virtues of the family and hold it up as the highest ideal happen to be the very people who undermine it . This is exactly what is happening with this draft directive on the reunification of the families of refugees and migrants .
Self-righteous hypocrisy is the main feature of this wing of the European Parliament , and we have experienced it again and again .
<P>
Yet I would like to say that I understand the qualms of many governments , including my own , concerning this draft directive .
Indeed , countries such as Germany , where millions of refugees and migrants have sought refuge , are shouldering an enormous burden .
But at the same time I would like to point out and to highlight the enormous contribution that refugees and migrants make to the economic development of our countries , through their work and through taxation .
The social burden that is referred to by the critics of the proposal may be reduced if refugees and their family members have the right to work , as provided for by the Commission proposal
<P>
Finally , I would like to point out that this directive sets out the minimum requirements , and governments retain the right to put in place better conditions for the reunification of families .
<SPEAKER ID=25 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="von Boetticher">
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , for the first time in my career as a Member of the European Parliament , I am happy in the certain knowledge that the Council will give Parliament 's misguided and dangerous opinion the consideration it deserves , i.e. none at all !
<P>
Commissioner Vitorino , although I hold you in high regard - and have said as much on many occasions in this House - the Commission document itself is shot through with negligent ignorance as to the situation in the very Member States that have been generous enough to accord large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers the right to protection and hospitality over the past few years .
You ask too much of our society , and in so doing , run the risk of creating a breeding ground for something that we have always fought against in this House .
The liberal and social democrat delegates from the large Member States - because so far today , I have only heard speakers of this political persuasion from the small Member States - must ask themselves whether they are remotely in touch with the electorate , whether they are aware of the consequences , and whether they have grasped that more authority for Parliament in these matters would also bring increased responsibility .
<P>
The age is past when we could hold forth here on our dreams for making the world a better place , without repercussions .
I would be very interested to see how you intend to justify today 's decision to your electorate .
Many of you will only vote in favour of this proposal today because you know full well that the Council will never endorse it as it stands .
I feel this is unworthy of you .
It is contrary to our task and to the mandate we have been given by the electorate .
<P>
I would just like to briefly pick up on the comments you made about polygamous marriages , which caused you to shake your head .
For goodness sake , go and read Article 3 , paragraph 2 , which says : therefore , whilst it is not permissible to bring in several wives and their children , it is , on the other hand , permissible to bring in one wife and her children .
This means I could have married someone here in the Member States , and would be at liberty , under certain circumstances , to have at least one more wife join me .
In other words , there is admissibility .
That is the fact of the matter .
In this way , it would be possible .. ..
<P>

<P>
...
no , that is precisely how it can be interpreted in legal terms !
It gives free rein to all kinds of interpretations .
There is only one thing we can do here , and that is reject this proposal .
<SPEAKER ID=26 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Vitorino">
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , this is the first time since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force that the European Parliament has been consulted on a Commission proposal for a Council directive on the matter of the lawful immigration of persons originating from third countries .
<P>
It is therefore a sign of the profound institutional changes introduced by the Treaty and given top priority on the European political agenda by the Heads of State and Government at the Tampere European Council .
The Commission has decided that a proposal on family reunification should start us off on this journey , this considerable effort to construct a common European immigration policy .
I should also like to begin by explaining why we have chosen this subject - in answer to a critical observation from Mrs Klamt , whom , regardless of our differences of opinion , I should like to congratulate on the work she has carried out as the first rapporteur for this matter .
<P>
I believe family reunification is a concept that is thoroughly coherent with the commitments that all the Member States undertook several decades ago in the sphere of international law .
From the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the international convenants made under the United Nations in 1966 , to the European Convention on Human Rights itself - in all these instruments of international law family protection is upheld as an essential factor for ensuring social peace .
I do not believe anybody can deny that family reunification is also an important instrument for the integration of immigrants from third countries into their host societies .
This has indeed been repeatedly recognised by the bodies of the European Union . That is , since 1993 the Council has been devoting constant attention to the subject of family reunification .
It must also be recognised that family reunification is significant in numerical terms because it is today one of the main causes of immigration into the countries of Europe .
<P>
The directive is not creating this flow of migrants ; what the directive intends is to regulate a situation that already exists on the ground .
Those who refuse to see that this directive aims at setting up legal rules to respond to a situation that already exists on the ground and try to blame the Commission for inventing a new flow of migrants are therefore being unfair in their analysis of the actual situation that we are addressing .
<P>
That is why the Commission decided that family reunification should be given priority treatment over other forms of lawful immigration .
It is not a matter of deciding on entry and residence for economic purposes , or the immigration of workers , or the immigration of students .
As we see it , it is a matter of regulating a different form of admittance in response to values - that is , family protection - and a strategic political objective : the promotion of the integration of third-country nationals who are already living lawfully in the Union into their host societies .
We are basing our approach on a principle which is debatable , but without any evidence to the contrary I believe it can be demonstrated . This is that family reunification is a factor which promotes the personal stability of the immigrant , since family life is always an important instrument for integration into the host country .
<P>
The Heads of State and Government at Tampere in fact unanimously stressed the need to ensure equitable treatment for third-country nationals who are lawfully resident in the Member States of the Union . They also stressed that a more dynamic integration policy needs to be developed in parallel , and that this policy should aim at offering third-country nationals rights and duties comparable to those held by the citizens of the Union .
These , then , ladies and gentlemen , are the values and political commitments upon which the Commission has based its proposal . I should also like to point out that the Commission has proposed an initiative in which family reunification is seen as a right .
This is not , however , an absolute right of the third-country citizens who reside in the Union 's Member States , and reside there lawfully .
Instead it is a right subject to conditions , whether procedural in nature or material conditions regarding the definition of the status of the family members in the country to which they have been admitted and regarding the rights that they enjoy .
<P>
I am willing to discuss all the implications of this proposal , also because the French Presidency considers this subject to be central during the six-month term for which it is responsible .
For our part , we are also willing to introduce an amended proposal as quickly as possible so that we can achieve a positive outcome during the French Presidency .
<P>
I should like to thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate .
Here as in the Commission it has been a lively , at times even passionate debate , because it deals with a sensitive issue on which , naturally , each country puts forward a very strong case for its own situation .
It is difficult to find common ground at European level . Above all , however , this debate has one fundamental feature .
It is no longer a debate on statements of intention : it is a debate on rules , binding legal provisions , which will have to be implemented .
It is therefore natural that it should be a lively , even passionate debate , and one in which there are divergent views .
<P>
The Commission considers your opinion to be of the utmost importance .
And I should like to congratulate Mr Wilson on the job he has done in presenting a report under the difficult circumstances in which this debate has taken place .
<P>
I should like to explain to you all what the Commission 's position is on the more difficult political issues in this directive .
<P>
First , the scope of the proposal : the Commission believes that refugees should be included within its scope , because from a political viewpoint it would be incomprehensible if economic migrants were granted a right to family reunification that we did not grant to refugees recognised under the Geneva Convention .
I accept , however , that it is necessary to exclude the beneficiaries of temporary protection or subsidiary protection .
This is not a matter of going back on a question of principle . I am convinced that a certain kind of beneficiary of temporary or subsidiary protection should also have the right to family reunification .
I do recognise , however , that the lack of harmonisation of this concept at European level and especially the Commission 's intention to submit a directive on temporary and subsidiary protection to Parliament and the Council next year will allow us to deal with the right to family reunification in that directive very soon .
We therefore accept an amendment to the proposal excluding beneficiaries of temporary or subsidiary protection .
<P>
Where issues relating to the concept of the family are concerned , I should like to make it very clear that in this proposal the Commission is not interfering in the matter of defining the concept of the family .
This proposal fully accepts that each Member State has the competence to define what a family is , as well as the issue , for instance , of unmarried partnerships .
This proposal does not say that all the Member States will be obliged to recognise unmarried partnerships and accept unmarried partners under all circumstances .
We are simply saying that in those countries where unmarried partnerships are placed on an equal footing with marriage in domestic law for their own nationals , these unmarried partnerships must also be recognised for the purpose of family reunification for third-country nationals .
I should therefore like to state clearly that there is nothing in this proposal favouring family reunification for polygamous marriages .
I am sorry , but the text is quite clear !
It is not possible to apply for a second wife to come !
Only one exception is made : for the children of the second marriage if the interests of the child so justify .
But how could you explain treating the children of a second polygamous marriage differently from the children of a first marriage or the children of an unmarried partnership ?
I am not a subverter of moral values , but I think we have to keep the interests of the children in the forefront .
<P>
Finally , Mr President , the Commission is willing to accept a number of other amendments and other modifications regarding the rights of family members , the conditions and clarification of the conditions for family reunification , the situation in which the person being reunited may acquire independent status , and concerning procedural rules .
Full details will be given before the vote is taken .
<P>
I should like to conclude by saying that this is , of course , an exercise that will give rise to debate .
The debate with the Council will not be easy , just as the debate with Parliament has not been easy . I respect the opinions of all Members .
I should like the final opinion of Parliament to have as broad a support-base as possible .
And I hope - regardless of our differences of opinion , which are to be expected and , may I say , useful and essential for democracy - that once this directive has been adopted , we may all be able to pool our efforts to solve the essential question that we have before us . This question is how we can create a clear and transparent legal framework that will ensure the integration of lawful immigrants into their host countries and we must do so because this integration is the key to the success of a common European immigration policy .
<SPEAKER ID=27 NAME="President">
Thank you Commissioner .
<P>
The debate is closed .
<P>
The vote will take place at 12 noon .
<CHAPTER ID=2>
Movement and residence of EU citizens
<SPEAKER ID=28 NAME="President">
The next item is the report ( A5-207 / 200 ) by Mrs Boumediene-Thiery , on behalf of the Committee on Citizens ' Freedoms and Rights , Justice and Internal Affairs , on the Commission report on the implementation of directives 90 / 364 , 90 / 365 and 93 / 96 ( right of residence ) and on the Communication from the Commission on the special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy , public security or public health [ COM ( 1999 ) 127 COM ( 1999 ) 372 - C5-0177 / 1999 , C5-0178 / 1999 - 1999 / 257 ( COS ) ]
<SPEAKER ID=29 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Boumediene-Thiery">
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I would first of all like to thank all of you who have , through your comments , contributed to fuelling this debate .
Before embarking on an explanation of my report , I would like to start by asking you a question that I cannot get out of my head . This is in my view the crux of the problem described in my report and will determine the way we vote .
This question is : what in fact does European citizenship really mean ?
Is it just a simple expression aimed at selling Europe , or do we really want to add content to this term ?
<P>
Today , for the majority of us who live in Europe , European citizenship is still a concept that is devoid of meaning .
If we want Europe to be more than a vast free trade area , we must take action to ensure that European citizenship goes beyond the status of a concept and takes root in the everyday life of the citizens of Europe .
This is the context in which I wish to place this debate .
The directives that have been examined concern Community nationals , but they must be modified in favour of third-county nationals .
<P>
The report aims to sum up the reality of the freedom to move and reside in the European Union .
With reference to the EC Treaty , my report was written with due regard to Article 14 , concerning free movement of persons , and Articles 17 and 18 concerning European citizenship , which entails the right to move and to reside freely throughout the territory of the European Union .
Although Member States have made great progress in ensuring the free movement of goods , services and capital , it is clear that we are no nearer to achieving the same for people .
<P>
I will start by filling in some of the background and the content of the directives .
Initially , freedom of movement was reserved for people who were economically active .
In June 1990 , the Council adopted three Commission draft directives to extend this right to all Member State nationals , even if they were not economically active .
I will just give the broad guidelines of these directives .
For retired people and other non-economically active people , the right of residence is open to those who have health insurance cover and adequate means .
For students , the right of residence is subject to the condition that the student is enrolled at a recognised educational establishment and that he is covered by sickness insurance .
In both cases , spouses and dependent children may accompany the holder of the right of residence and may work .
<P>
The transposition of these directives was doubly problematic .
On the one hand , the directives were transposed extremely slowly throughout the Union .
What is more , the Commission had to initiate fourteen infringement procedures .
The Commission concludes that ' for too long , EU citizens have been denied some of their rights or been faced with unjustified administrative difficulties due to the incorrect transposition of the Directives ' .
<P>
Let us now proceed to a concrete assessment of the situation . This right to free movement and residence , which is confirmed in the Maastricht Treaty , is violated by economic considerations .
The notion of adequate means is incorrectly interpreted by governments .
What income is to be taken into account when evaluating means ?
What evidence must be provided ?
How does one take into consideration a progressive financial situation which sometimes depends on the help provided by the spouse ?
Because the acceptance procedures are long and difficult , it is often necessary to take out a second health insurance in the host country .
When you are not in salaried work , it is difficult to obtain a residence permit and the instability of the professional situation is added to by the short-term nature of the residence permit once it has been obtained .
<P>
With regard to special measures justified in the name of public order , the Commission gives examples of many cases of incorrect interpretations , such as criminal convictions that justify systematic deportation and expulsion .
Finally , administrative procedures are too long - more than six months - and become very costly when frequent renewal is necessary , as the period of validity is normally two years rather than five .
<P>
I will now present the main measures advocated with a view to overcoming these problems .
Our first proposal is to ask the Commission to prepare a framework directive , which would adopt a position based on the fundamental right of free movement and residence rather than on a sector-specific approach which necessarily leaves room for ambiguities .
It will still be possible at a later date to implement a whole raft of specific measures to help citizens depending on their particular situation .
This reworking of the existing directives must dissociate the fundamental right of movement and residence from any economic considerations .
These measures must be concomitant with simplifying administrative procedures and providing documents free of charge .
Until these mechanisms can be put in place , a transitional measure may be to introduce a one-year residence permit for all applicants .
Harmonising social protection systems and pension systems is vital .
Finally , in the case of special measures justified by the notion of public order , we can only call on Member States to narrow down their interpretation , to put an end to the double penalty and to protect certain categories of people from expulsion .
<P>
I would like to finish by clarifying a number of points .
Rights must be attached to the individual and the individual must take the rights with him wherever he goes .
Third-country citizens living and working legally in a Member State must benefit from the same rights as European citizens .
Furthermore , it is a pity that the Council has not followed up this proposal of citizenship and residence .
<P>
In conclusion , I hope that I have persuaded you to support this resolutely citizen-centred approach of freedom of movement and residence , which is a fundamental issue for awareness of a European identity .
At a time when discussions about the future of Europe are hitting the headlines , and when we are examining a future charter of fundamental rights , we must support any project aimed at providing an area of freedom , justice and equality , where all the residents and citizens who contribute to the construction of Europe must have the same rights .
Perhaps it is time that people acquired the same rights as the products they consume .
<SPEAKER ID=30 NAME="Wallis">
I should like to congratulate the rapporteur .
We are dealing here with a long-overdue overhaul of a number of directives relating to rights of residents of the non-economically active .
My starting-point , as was the rapporteur 's , is that we should give European Union citizenship real meaning .
The Treaty statement that every citizen should have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States and the reality are still far apart .
<P>
I draw on the experience of a number of language students from other Member States in my own constituency .
They received a standard letter from our local social security office asking them to attend for a two-hour interview and to bring with them as many items as possible on a non-exhaustive list of about twenty documents such as a passport , bank statements , or household bills to " establish their identity " .
When I enquired further about this I was told that it was not an EU matter , because the same letter would be sent to UK residents .
In what circumstances I cannot imagine .
And , the two hour time-scale , even more ludicrously , was supposed to save them from a car parking fine in the local car-park !
<P>
I would not want to see any citizens treated in the same way as these students .
The history of the directives that deal with the rights of residence of the non-economically active is an unhappy one : non-implementation , infringement proceedings , a patchwork of different and burdensome requirements .
You can move a sack of potatoes around Europe more easily than a citizen can move .
If we are to appeal to our citizens and the basic right of free movement is to be real , then simple , fast codification of this area of Community law is long overdue .
Then , and only then , will the Treaty statement on European Union citizenship become a reality instead of mere words .
<SPEAKER ID=31 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Schmid, Herman">
Mr President , we are great talkers about human rights in the EU , but in practice it is often the case that citizens ' rights are synonymous with money .
Those who have work and can support themselves are protected by legislation , but there are large groups of people who do not have work of their own and who therefore do not have rights .
<P>
This may apply to students who have to prove that they have a proper place at university or to pensioners who have to prove that they will be taking their pensions or own capital with them if they move .
It may also apply to third-country nationals and especially to relatives who are third-country nationals and who are not allowed to accompany the breadwinner when he or she obtains work on the other side of the border .
<P>
This means that those who are weakest economically are still discriminated against .
The report proposes significant improvements for these groups , which in practice are larger than one might think .
They are to be given better opportunities to move and an extended right to take up residence in other countries .
<P>
In this connection , I would also point out that the right to move within the labour market and the right of residence are not the same thing .
Nowadays , there are many workers who are sent on short-term contracts to work in other Member States and who do not receive any right of residence at all .
For those who do not have a secure income or other means of support , the right of residence is almost nil .
<P>
Freedom of movement for labour is protected by the legislation of the internal market .
For the majority of people , it is more important , however , for their right of residence , including their right to stay on , to be protected .
This means that people are not compelled to move even if they cannot support themselves .
Radical improvement is needed in this area , and it would be as well to tackle this problem now , at a time when the Member States ' economies are looking better than they once did .
<SPEAKER ID=32 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Mayer, Hans-Peter">
.- ( DE ) Mr President , Mrs Boumediene-Thiery 's report addresses the problems that the Commission mentions in its report on how matters stand with regard to the application of provisions on residence rights .
Yet , Mrs Boumediene-Thiery would like to see the scope of application of these residence rights extended to third-country nationals .
<P>
The Committee on Petitions was asked to submit an opinion because it is a special committee that is directly concerned with the problems facing the general public .
Unfortunately , there are still far too many infringements of the rights of EU citizens ; I wholeheartedly agree on that score .
Firstly , Member States are wavering when it comes to implementing Community law provisions on residence rights .
In particular , subordinate authorities in the Member States are unfamiliar for the most part with the relevant provisions .
Secondly , the problems associated with the recognition of diplomas are hugely restrictive .
What use is the right of residence to me , if I do not have the right to exercise the profession I am trained in , in the host country ?
Thirdly , a failure to adapt the provisions on freedom of movement , and the social security rules , to the changing labour market , is causing problems .
It is simply not acceptable that I could fail to be reimbursed for medical treatment abroad merely because I do not have the correct form .
<P>
Mr President , we have provisions governing EU citizens ' right of residence in other Member States , but even now , they are not being fully applied .
We are constantly hearing of cases where EU citizens are unable to reside in another Member State .
Therefore , let us urge the EU Member States to implement the existing Community law provisions without delay , before we consider extending these rights to third-country nationals at any rate .
<SPEAKER ID=33 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Hernndez Mollar">
Mr President , in the event that the amendments we are presenting to Mrs Boumediene-Thiery 's report are not accepted , my group will vote against it for reasons which I believe to be fundamental .
<P>
The directives under debate today refer to the free movement and residence of students as well as people who have ceased professional activity or who are economically inactive and who , furthermore , receive disability or old-age pensions or subsidies - all of them Community citizens - as well as the exceptions laid down in another directive on expulsion for reasons of public order , security or public health .
<P>
The problem is that Mrs Boumediene-Thiery widens the scope of these directives to include citizens of third countries .
For example , section 20 of the resolution extends family reunification to non-Community families and their relatives in ascending and descending lines , who are not dependent on the resident , which would increase admission without restrictions .
Furthermore , to treat unmarried couples on the same terms as married couples , which does not raise many problems in the case of Community citizens , given the diversity of the legislation , does raise problems in the case of third country citizens because there would be very real problems recognising stable cohabitation .
It would give rise to so-called marriages of convenience or false marriages , and that amounts to fraud ..
<P>
Furthermore , I believe that all the false logic which is used when referring to migrant workers has no place in this debate , not so much because of the subject matter but rather because it is not appropriate for the study of these directives .
<P>
As the Commission says , the level of information needs to be improved so that European citizens are crystal clear as to what their rights are with regard to moving freely within the internal market , with clear , concise and specific rules and using communication technologies such as the Internet , the television , or local and regional media .
Commissioner , the suggestion that replies to parliamentary questions should reach our various citizens by means of the methods of communication considered appropriate , does not seem to me to be a good procedure .
I think that it is impractical , apart from anything else because not even MEPs always read those replies .
<P>
It is also necessary to eliminate the absurd amount of paperwork needed to justify the nature and size of the pension .
I believe that an identity card for pensioners and the use of computers should replace these cumbersome forms of authorising payments .
The same would apply to students .
In order to facilitate their mobility , we should free them of unnecessary costs and make their residence compatible with their periods of study or apprenticeship .
<P>
Finally , I would also like to point out that it makes no sense to link public order , as section 6 of the resolution does , with the Schengen area in a proposal aimed at the citizens of the European Union , who are not governed by the Schengen legislation but by Community directives , in particular those relating to public order .
<P>
In order to update the legislation , I believe it is necessary to revise the texts by means of a new regulation and simplify the obstacles to free movement and to the residence of Community citizens .
<SPEAKER ID=34 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Van Lancker">
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , allow me to begin by thanking the European Commission for its sustained efforts in keeping the right of residence - within the context of the free movement of persons in Europe - high on the agenda ; this is once again borne out by these two communications on the right of residence .
Secondly , I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her report .
She has opted for a broad approach , Mr Hernandez Mollar , and her report covers right of residence for all citizens , including the economically active and those from third countries , topics which are , in fact , covered by proposals already submitted .
My group supports this approach because , despite all initiatives from the Commission , despite the Veil report , despite the action programme and despite the legislative initiatives , the proposals remain on the Council table with very little happening to them .
<P>
Within the framework of this debate , I should like to home in on four specific points .
Firstly , it has become apparent recently that the European labour market is relying increasingly on mobility ; an ever dwindling number of companies manage to fill their vacancies .
It is therefore quite astounding that there are still that many obstacles with regard to the free movement of persons and right of residence , especially where temporary contracts , part-time jobs and the unemployed who look for jobs abroad are concerned .
Secondly , my group keeps an open mind on European citizenship . To us , this means that the non-economically active , the retired and students should also be entitled to a right of residence , subject to certain conditions , of course .
The obstructions which some Member States are creating at the moment do give us the strong impression that some Member States do not want to embrace the European citizenship idea at all .
Thirdly , we aspire to create a citizenship which does not discriminate according to the type of relationship citizens choose for themselves .
Whether they choose to live together , and whether they are single , gay or lesbian , they should also be able to claim right of residence in those countries where these types of relationship are recognised ; if not , we would be denying thousands of people the right to live in families .
And finally , we embrace a vision of citizenship which is also open to people from third countries , residents of the European Union , legal immigrants and permanent residents , without discrimination .
We therefore give this report by Mrs Boumediene-Thiery our unconditional support .
We hope that the Commission will continue to adopt a hard line against infringements and the pitiful transposition of EU legislation in the Member States , but above all I hope from the bottom of my heart that the Council will finally pluck up the courage to tackle the free movement of persons full-on .
<SPEAKER ID=35 NAME="Ludford">
Mr President , there has thankfully been a change in European Community law over the last 30 years from freedom of movement of persons being seen as purely an economic issue - functional mobility - to it being seen as a personal right .
This has meant a lot of rhetoric about a citizen 's Europe but not much change in the mentality or administrations of the Member States , as Mrs Wallis has pointed out .
<P>
In saying that , I am not overlooking the economic benefits of free movement .
Mrs Boumediene-Thiery 's report points out - and I congratulate her for its quality - that facilitating mobility promotes dynamism and economic competitiveness .
So why does the Right ignore this ?
But the real bottom line for Liberals is whether the Member States believe in and respect the notion of European citizenship , not only allowing the citizens of a Member State and their families to move around but also conferring such rights , to the greatest extent possible , on legally resident third-country nationals and their families - which unfortunately were not covered by the Commission report .
<P>
It is very aggravating when the Council of Ministers and individual governments wring their hands about the low turnout in European elections , launch campaigns with balloons and plastic bags about people 's Europe and seek to win citizens ' votes in referendum campaigns , but still maintain obstructive red tape when those citizens have the cheek to assert their European legal right to move freely .
<P>
Those rules are far too complicated anyway .
We need a complete overhaul to streamline and make crystal clear the unimpeded exercise of free movement .
It is not too much to ask .
As Mrs Wallis said , it should be as easy for people to cross borders as it is for widgets or potatoes .
<SPEAKER ID=36 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Krivine">
We support Mrs Boumediene-Thiery 's report .
It is indeed time that we respected equal rights and abandoned the rationale of suspicion towards immigration .
Member States take it upon themselves to refuse the right of residence to foreign students , even if they are enrolled at a recognised educational establishment , if they believe that they have changed direction or are not progressing quickly enough , which should be a decision left to the university authorities .
<P>
This rationale of suspicion gives rise to obsessive references to the need for public order and the scandalous practice of double penalties .
For the same crime , in addition to prison , foreigners are systematically and automatically expelled from a Member State .
This banishment violates the principle of equality before the law that is enshrined in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights .
Finally , it is important to facilitate the granting and renewal of permanent residence permits , as a residence permit of very brief duration leads to employment of very brief duration , discrimination and exploitation .
<P>
Finally , the time has come to promote a European citizenship that is based on residence .
The right to vote must be extended to non-Community nationals if we want to get rid of xenophobia and racism in Europe .
<SPEAKER ID=37 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Angelilli">
Mr President , as the rapporteurs who have just spoken said , although the right to free movement is deemed to be one of the most important aspects of the fundamental right of European citizenship , it is a right which is all too often subject to restrictions , and the large number of petitions to the European Parliament on precisely this subject are testimony to this .
<P>
I would first of all like to focus on a point strongly emphasised in the report : the need to fight against all abusive and excessively restrictive interpretations of the concept of public policy by some Member States .
For example , someone who has lived in a country since childhood or , at any rate , for a large number of years , and therefore has cultural , social and family ties in that country , should not be deported unless he or she is convicted of a crime which is deemed to be , in effect , a serious offence , under the criminal law of the country of residence .
Sadly , this is very often not the case .
<P>
Another point which I would like to focus on concerns the members of certain royal families , such as the Italian royal family , for example , which , despite the fact that it does not pose a threat to national security , cannot fully exercise its legitimate right of free movement .
I feel that the time has truly come to make a genuine attempt to tackle these issues and remove the barriers to free movement once and for all , for the very reason that - as has already been said - potatoes and goods appear to have greater freedom of movement in Europe than the citizens .
<SPEAKER ID=38 NAME="Tannock">
Freedom of movement and residence is a right enshrined in European treaties and granted to all citizens and should only be denied in exceptional cases when there is a real threat to public safety .
It is therefore all the more extraordinary that 50 years after the signing of the Convention of Human Rights , which ironically was signed in Rome , and one year after the Treaty of Amsterdam upholding such rights , that one European family , which for a thousand years has been involved with the continent 's history , is being denied the fundamental rights my colleague has mentioned .
<P>
The Watson report demands such rights for family reunion and the Boumediene-Thiery report for freedom of movement and residence , even for third-country nationals and even for convicted criminals .
This family , as mentioned , is the former royal house of Savoy in Italy and lesser violations are also being committed against the royal houses of Austria and Greece by their governments .
<P>
The thirteenth transitional article of the Italian Constitution , absurdly labelled " transitional " but still in force after 53 years , is not only a violation of European treaties , but also sexually discriminatory in that it applies only to male royal descendants , no matter how far removed , of the constitutional monarch King Victor Emanuel , deemed guilty of signing unacceptable wartime fascist laws .
<P>
Ironically , descendants of Mussolini are not only allowed to live in Italy but one actually sits in the Italian Parliament .
This article is shameful and obsolete and all Members of Parliament , even those with anti-monarchist feelings , should join me in calling upon the Italian government to allow an innocent European family to return to their native land , where it poses no conceivable threat to public safety or the stability of the Italian Republic .
<P>
We can only call for European citizens to have more rights if all their rights are upheld irrespective of origin and without discrimination .
This issue goes far beyond individual families and goes right to the heart of the Union 's respect for its own laws and treaties .
Either we have a European Union based on law or we do not .
I therefore commend my Amendment No 14 to this House .
<SPEAKER ID=39 NAME="Ford">
Can I congratulate Mrs Boumediene-Thiery on her report on special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy , public security , or public health .
It is a very good report .
Unfortunately , in two minutes all I can do is talk about some of its failings .
Firstly the Commission has failed to deal with the issue of the 12 to 14 million third-country nationals living legally in the Union who currently suffer discrimination and , outside the Union 's island States can move freely de facto but cannot do so legally , which of course creates situations in which they are exploited and used in illegal ways .
<P>
With all due respect for the rapporteur , I have to say that we also have a problem with a number of areas that she has not dealt with , one of which is the issue of football hooliganism .
I am generally in favour of free movement but I think it needs to be limited .
I do not normally believe that persons who have not been convicted of crimes should be prevented from moving freely , but there is a European problem that is being ignored at European level .
Europol should be used to prevent the free movement of people who have been convicted of football-related crimes to ensure that they do not cause the same kind of trouble as at previous World Cup and European championship tournaments .
I also believe that the provisions should be invoked on the grounds of public security to prevent the free movement of German neo-Nazis who produce Holocaust denial material in Denmark with the clear intention of reimporting it into Germany , where it is illegal .
I hope that the Danish Government will use the provisions in this instance .
<P>
Equally , we need to make sure that the system is not abused .
I naturally hope that the free movement of people who have the misfortune to be HIV-positive is not restricted in any way on grounds of public health .
<P>
I agree with Mr Tannock in principle .
Of course the royal families of Europe should be allowed to move about freely .
However , I disagree with his priorities .
When we ignore the rights of 12 to 14 million legal residents , then the rights of two families are comparatively insignificant .
<SPEAKER ID=40 LANGUAGE="PT" NAME="Coelho">
Mr President , I should like to begin by agreeing with all those who have pointed out that the matter we are discussing concerns the very essence of European citizenship .
We might say that this right contributes towards a practical and concrete expression of the concept of European citizenship , in that the great challenge facing us at the moment is to turn this legally recognised right into a practical reality that is implemented in citizens ' everyday lives .
<P>
I also agree with those who have pointed out that the transposition of these directives has taken place too slowly , or even incorrectly in some cases .
In addition , we must also face up to the difficulties arising out of implementation of the directive on special measures concerning the movement and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy , public security or public health , in that there should be guidelines not only for the Member States , which have so far interpreted the provisions of the directive in quite a variety of ways , but also for the citizens regarding the rights conferred on them .
<P>
The Member States may impose restrictions on the right to free movement of Community citizens , particularly in matters of entry to and expulsion from their territory as well as the issuing or renewal of residence permits , where this is justified on grounds of public policy , public security or public health .
Member States cannot , however , abuse such prerogatives in a European Union based on the rule of law , respect for human rights and particularly respect for the European Convention on Human Rights as well as , soon , a Charter of Fundamental Rights .
It is for this reason , then , that these measures of exception to free movement have been subject to restrictive interpretation .
<P>

Finally , Mr President , I should like to express my agreement with my colleague Hernndez Mollar when he gave his support to the proposal from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market to try to integrate the various texts into a single regulation . This could be implemented directly and would be a primary document on European citizenship , which would offer all the necessary information not only to citizens regarding their rights of citizenship but also to the government departments in each Member State that have the task of implementing existing legislation .
<SPEAKER ID=41 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Fatuzzo">
Mr President , Commissioner , in company with Mr Hernndez Mollar - whom I would like to thank for his enthusiastic support for Amendment No 15 , tabled by myself - I feel that this document must be rejected if the European People 's Party 's amendments are not incorporated .
<P>
I support Amendment No 14 , tabled by Mr Tannock , which upholds the free movement of the heirs to the Italian and Greek thrones and supports the monarchy .
<P>
Personally , in tabling Amendment No 15 , I support the pensioners , for although the measure facilitates the movement of non-EU citizens , it does not remove the difficulties facing its own citizens , particularly its disabled citizens , who wish to travel within Europe .
<P>
At Bergamo Orio al Serio airport , as I was leaving to come to Strasbourg , I met a pensioner - a very old lady who is 80 years old - who told me that she wanted to go to Paris to visit her daughter but that she could not do so because she would lose her Italian State pension which is her only means of support .
Another person , who is totally handicapped , said that they wanted to go to London but that they could not do so because they would have lost their pension .
Yet another person , who is disabled - in a wheelchair , no less - told me that he would have liked to go and visit his brother but that in doing so he would have lost his incapacity allowance .
<P>
Therefore , our goal must be to bring about the free movement of pensioners and disabled citizens in Europe .
<SPEAKER ID=42 NAME="President">
Mr Fatuzzo , you have made me think very carefully about where I shall travel to in old age .
<P>
Commissioner Vitorino has the floor .
<SPEAKER ID=43 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Vitorino">
Mr President , on behalf of the Commission , I would like first of all to congratulate Mrs Boumediene-Thiery and all those who have taken part in this debate .
Indeed , I think that , for the Commission , the establishment of European citizenship has created a new legal and political environment and , for our part , we intend to draw all the practical lessons we can both in the legislative field and in the field of day-to-day public administration .
The Commission is counting a great deal on the support of the European Parliament when the time comes .
<P>
With regard to the motion for a resolution that you have just presented , I would simply like to address two or three comments directed at the Commission .
The three directives on the right of residence of the non-economically active have , I am sure , enabled thousands of European Union citizens to benefit from this right without encountering any particular problems .
However , there are still cases where these directives are incorrectly applied .
I can assure you that the Commission always intervenes - and tries to do so strictly under all circumstances - even if its intervention is not always obvious .
If agreement is not reached , the Commission does not hesitate to notify Reasoned Opinions to the Member States concerned .
Citizens ' complaints that meet with a satisfactory administrative response through extra-judicial procedures can be counted in their hundreds .
<P>
The action of the Commission also applies to the laws of Member States . One could , in my view , cite several cases where this intervention has brought about modification of the legislation of Member States and sometimes even the examination , by the Court of Justice , of issues to which it has provided positive solutions .
There is no shortage of examples either concerning the Member States ' improper use of the notion of public order , especially that leading to the expulsion from their territory of nationals from other Member States . I can assure you , however , that the number of these cases is now very low and that , with regard to such cases , the European Commission never fails to take the necessary measures pursuant to Community law .
<P>
Nevertheless , it cannot be claimed that the strict application of Community law is sufficient to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of European Union citizens , bearing in mind the huge number of obstacles that persist due to the shortcomings in Community law .
These shortcomings have already been identified in the second report by the Commission on European citizenship and in the report by the High Level Group headed by Simone Veil , which was presented to the Commission in 1997 .
<P>
Moreover , I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this morning we debated the directive on family reunification and that the Tampere Conclusions require the Commission to present a proposal on the recognition of entry , admission and residence conditions and on the legal status of third-country nationals within the European Union legally .
We are currently working on this .
<P>
For all these reasons , the Commission shares the opinion expressed by several Members of this House on the need for a global reworking of existing texts within the context of a single legal instrument , which will organise and guarantee the unimpeded exercise of the freedom of movement and residence .
This reworking , which moreover is included in the Commission action programme for 2000 , is already in preparation .
It is based on the idea that entitlement to the right of free movement and residence must be dissociated from any prior reference to the economic situation of the beneficiaries in order to be attached henceforth to a concept and a status resulting directly from the importance of European citizenship .
<P>
The unique status of a European Union citizen necessarily creates the need for a unique general system of movement and residence in response to the demand to enrich the content of European citizenship in accordance with the political aspirations of the Union .
<SPEAKER ID=44 NAME="President">
The debate is closed .
<P>
The vote will take place today at 12 noon .
<CHAPTER ID=3>
Environmental effects of certain programmes
<SPEAKER ID=45 NAME="President">
The next item is the recommendation for second reading ( A5-0196 / 2000 ) by Mrs Schrling , on behalf of the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy , on the Council common position ( C5-0180 / 2000 - 1996 / 0304 ( COD ) ) for adopting a European Parliament and Council directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment .
<SPEAKER ID=46 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Schrling">
Mr President , I am very pleased that I have been entrusted with being rapporteur for the second reading of the SEA Directive which I believe is an important step towards a new form of behaviour in environmental policy .
I want to thank all my fellow MEPs in the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy , together with the Commission and , in particular , the Portuguese Presidency for the excellent way in which they have cooperated .
<P>
This draft directive concerns strategic environmental assessments which , in brief , involve a systematic process for identifying , analysing and assessing the influence and likely effects of plans and programmes upon the environment .
The assessments are to be carried out at as early a stage as possible in the planning process , partly so that alternative solutions might be found before the decision-making process is taken any further .
Environmental reports are to be written and made available to the environmental authorities , the public and environmental organisations , which are also to be given sufficient time within which to respond to the reports .
<P>
This is a very important directive for the whole of the Community 's environmental policy if a tool is to be obtained which makes it easier to comply with the commitments to sustainable development and compliance with the precautionary principle which have been made in the Treaty and in other agreements .
A modern environmental policy worthy of the name must do everything to ensure that damage to the environment does not occur and that effects upon the environment are minimised .
What often happens nowadays is that attempts are made to identify and repair damage once it has occurred .
As early as at the planning stage , we must learn to use policy areas , plans and programmes to avoid and reduce the negative effects and influence upon the environment .
The SEA Directive constitutes a very important step towards an approach of this kind .
<P>
Unfortunately , this draft directive makes no mention of policy areas , in spite of the fact that they figure in the Commission 's original draft from 1991 and in spite of the fact that all researchers in this area actually take it for granted that policy areas too must be included in a strategic environmental assessment .
It was not possible to achieve this in the Council , but the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy considered that policy areas too must be included in the review to be carried out in five years ' time .
This has been discussed in Amendments 2 and 21 .
<P>
A crucial argument when the Commission finally tabled this proposal in 1996 was that the assessment at project level enters the decision-making process much too late .
In actual fact , this is one of the main points in the directive - that an environmental assessment should be made early on in the decision-making process .
<P>
At first reading , the European Parliament had quite a lot of points of view .
The proposal was thought to be heading in the right direction but in many areas , it did not go far enough .
Parliament tabled 29 amendments , of which 15 are more or less to be found in the common position .
<P>
If the SEA is to be a genuinely useful tool , the directive must be sufficiently broad in scope and the environmental report and the assessments must naturally be of very high quality .
In the common position , the Council has now made the text worse in a number of areas , specifically when it comes , for example , to the scope of the directive and the definition of what it is to cover .
The Commission too was very , very critical of the common position because it was far too limited in relation to the original text .
<P>
The Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy has tried to restore something of the balance , for example by means of Amendments 6 and 7 which broaden the scope of the directive by not limiting it only to plans and programmes linked to EIA projects .
We do not permit whole categories of plans and programmes to be exempt .
Nor can we accept that financial plans and the whole of the defence sector are exempt from strategic environmental assessments .
This is discussed in Amendment 10 , which also proposes that structural funds must also of course be covered by strategic environmental assessments next time around .
Other amendments which improve the directive concern greater transparency and openness to inspection and the need also to cooperate and consult with countries outside the Community .
<P>
I personally am very surprised at Amendment 26 from Mr Nassauer and 29 other MEPs who want to reject the common position .
This possibility was not mentioned at all in the Committee 's discussion .
Clearly , they are fully entitled to make this proposal , but do they really think that the EU 's environmental policy is something extraneous which is not in any way binding ?
Should the European Parliament just not bother about the text of the Treaty , the Cardiff Agreement , the Fifth Environmental Programme and so on ?
I really do not think that the proposal is a genuinely serious one .
<P>
Amendments 11 and 31 also worry me a little .
Amendment 11 , in particular , says that the Member States should define at what level SEAs are to be carried out if plans and programmes are part of a hierarchical system .
In this way , the whole idea of arranging an SEA is called into question , so I hope these amendments do not go through .
<SPEAKER ID=47 NAME="Bowis">
Mr President , this is a small but significant measure to extend the duties of Member States to carry out strategic environmental assessments on the planning framework as well as on the actual plans where the implementation would or could have a significant impact on the environment .
All Member States voted for the common position , but some made it clear that they would go very little further than that .
Our task is to clarify and to amend responsibly and on behalf of the PPE-DE Group I congratulate the rapporteur , Mrs Schrling , on the work she has done and the consultation she has had with us .
We will however be rejecting some of her amendments , notably those that seek to extend the system to all financial plans , to defence and civil defence , to consultation beyond what is reasonable and to the general policies she has just mentioned , which become more of a wish-list than firm proposals .
<P>
However , we agree that it makes no sense to exclude projects financed wholly or partially by the European Union , especially structural funds , and we certainly agree that it makes sense to talk to neighbouring states outside the European Union .
We agree that there should be adequate reporting back , not only on the environmental risks identified by the assessment , but on the action it is proposed to take to mitigate or remove them .
We also of course have to consider Amendment No 26 , in the name of some of our German colleagues , which rejects the common position .
I understand the concerns of colleagues from Germany and some parts of Italy .
These result from the way in which some governments and regional governments have chosen to implement the assessments .
These governments are giving environmental assessment and Europe a bad name for what are entirely excesses of their own making and they need to look carefully at their domestic policies .
<P>
But this is a subsidiarity measure which leaves the details to Member States .
It is not the big hand of Europe extending control to local planning matters .
It does , however , ensure that particularly at our respective borders our planning takes account of the environment quality within and across our borders when planning frameworks are being agreed .
We believe that to be a good thing and my PPE-DE Group will therefore not be supporting Amendment No 26 and will vote for the common position .
We shall then vote for the amendments we supported in committee and for one further clarifying amendment which has been submitted since , but we shall oppose the amendments which we believe are a step too far in terms of what is desirable , practical and acceptable .
<SPEAKER ID=48 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Sacconi">
Mr President , the directive we are about to vote on represents a major step forwards .
The obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment at an extremely early stage of town and country planning activities does , in fact , make it possible to incorporate environmental concerns fully right from the conception of town and country planning plans and programmes .
The Union has at last realised that we can no longer restrict ourselves to merely picking up the pieces following damage caused by short-sighted planning , but that the damage must be averted as early on as possible .
<P>
The amendments approved by the Committee on the Environment substantially improve the Council 's common position .
<P>
Firstly , it was upheld that , in order to exert any real influence over national customs , the scope of the directive must be as wide as possible .
In this context , I feel that plans and projects financed from the Structural Funds must without exception be governed by the directive , seeing that , in practice , they represent all the programmes implemented , particularly in regions whose development is lagging behind .
<P>
Secondly , the principle of consultation and provision of information to the public and the organisations concerned throughout the assessment process , in compliance with the Aarhus Convention , has been reestablished .
<P>
I therefore feel that this is a sound text overall .
I understand the concerns of the Members coming from countries organised according to a Federal State model , who fear that the local authorities will be overloaded with work , but I feel that the amendments , particularly Amendments Nos 19 , 29 and 31 , are sufficient to avoid an overlap between the two directives and still ensure respect for the environment .
<SPEAKER ID=49 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Olsson">
Mr President , every day it is drawn to our attention that the environment is changing .
Last Sunday , I was listening to a Swedish radio programme which said that , in central Sweden , people would have to adjust to the fact that rainfall would increase by 50 per cent over the next few years .
In one way or another , environmental questions are always the subject of public opinion nowadays .
They must therefore feature in a better way in political work , too .
I therefore want to congratulate Mrs Schrling on a very good report which proposes that environmental aspects must be taken into consideration at an early stage .
In principle , environmental issues must permeate all activities , economic activity above all perhaps .
<P>
When it comes to plans , building projects etc , it is of course important , as proposed in this report , to take account of environmental aspects as early as possible so that mistakes and increased costs can be avoided and the right solution found as soon as possible .
<P>
I think it is extremely important and commendable that Mrs Schrling should propose that the scope of the directive should be broadened .
It is a matter of urgency that economic activity should be included in the environmental assessment .
It is transparently obvious to the EU , which invests a very large part of its budget in the agricultural sphere , in regional policy and in the structural funds , that these areas should be examined from an environmental point of view .
We cannot go in and do this directly but should do so as quickly as possible whenever new plans come out .
It is unreasonable to do what is at present done with EU funds and to support such activities within these sectors as are opposed from an environmental point of view in other contexts .
<P>
We must try to create a system in which we think in environmental terms from the very beginning , even when it comes to economic problems .
This is a major and important issue .
I realise that large sections of this House do not agree with me , but my group and I completely support Mrs Schrling in this connection .
<SPEAKER ID=50 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="Gonzlez lvarez">
Mr President , I am going to refer briefly to four points which were fully debated in the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Policy .
We are basically in favour of the proposal of the Environment Committee and its rapporteur .
<P>
With regard to the inclusion of some of the sectors in the directive , in particular the extractive industry and the defence industry , we believe that they should not be left out .
Provided , of course , that the necessary precautions are taken .
<P>
I would also like to stress the importance of the inclusion of the management of water resources .
An ambitious government plan will be presented soon in Spain , the National Hydrological Plan , which will have a clear impact on the places where it is put into practice .
We feel it is essential that these assessment studies should be carried out .
<P>
Also very important to us is the role of the public , i.e. transparency .
There is a directive on the right to information , No 313 , which has been repeatedly ignored by the Member States and by local and regional authorities .
<P>
Likewise , we must include the quality of the studies and the issue of health amongst the significant sectors affected .
High environmental standards and good health are very closely related .
<SPEAKER ID=51 NAME="Hyland">
Mr President , I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate and in so doing acknowledge the positive role of Parliament in setting the agenda for the highest standards of environmental protection .
There is of course a cost factor in environmental management , but equally an economic return , which not easily quantified but exists none the less .
<P>
The proposed directive , which requires an environmental assessment before the adoption of a regional or county plan , makes good environmental and economic sense .
Far too often in the past we have seen costly development plans collapse because of environmental considerations that were not addressed at the initial planning stage .
<P>
Finally , I would appeal to professional planners to use their common sense by taking account of the views of public representatives and community groups .
A textbook approach of the kind seen far too often has not always served to meet citizens ' requirements in this important area .
Planning must not become the sole preserve of those who have an academic qualification .
Elected Members must exercise greater care and concern when drawing up development policies that will ultimately affect Union citizens .
<SPEAKER ID=52 LANGUAGE="NL" NAME="Blokland">
Mr President , strategic environmental impact assessment is an instrument which allows governments to assess whether policy proposals , plans and programmes are compatible with the concept of sustainable development .
In this way , we can ensure that environmental concerns form a more integral part of the economy . Indeed , decisions at macro-economic level too should be accompanied by a preliminary strategic environmental impact assessment .
It is therefore important for public administrations to be very aware of the usefulness of this exercise in order to prevent environmental damage as far as possible .
<P>
It is equally important for us to clearly outline which plans require environmental impact assessments and which do not .
The Council has dealt with this extensively .
I am in favour of submitting policy proposals , including environmental impact assessments , to public administrations .
In that case , a public administration may decide to scrap a plan , programme or proposal , call these off in good time or replace them by environmentally-friendly alternatives .
<P>
On the other hand , there is a substantial risk of too many plans and programmes being subjected to environmental impact assessments .
If extensive studies are carried out of plans and programmes whose impact on the environment is negligible , then this is a waste of energy .
What is more , the instrument as such is being weakened .
So in this light , including all financial plans , as proposed by the Committee on the Environment , Public Health and Consumer Protection would therefore be going too far .
<SPEAKER ID=53 NAME="Myller">
Mr President , the best way to integrate environmental issues with all areas of policy is to get the environmental perspective in the picture at the earliest possible stage .
In this way we will avoid the problems we have at the moment with regard to harmonisation of the use of land , financial activity , and the expectations of the public .
There is in existence a strategic evaluation of the impact on the environment that applies not only to town planning but also agricultural , transport , travel and energy sector programmes , among others .
In order for us to be able to harmonise all these important aspects and proceed in an environmentally and socially sustainable way we need plans that are sufficiently long-term in nature : long-term inasmuch as they act as genuine guidelines for separate and independent measures .
In this connection I have to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work .
<P>
It is quite natural that Structural Funds programmes , plans and measures should be included in any examination of this issue .
It is also important that we take the proper course of action at different levels , and not act in too complicated or bureaucratic a manner , but take account of the new information we get all the time .
In this respect there has perhaps been too much anxiety about overlap , but I hope that , after this debate , this report will be as successful as possible as far as this is concerned .
<SPEAKER ID=54 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Lange">
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , this is a new instrument and it accords with Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam , which concerns the integration of environmental policies into other areas .
It is a delicate flower and we all want it to be a success .
I also want it to be well received by my electorate back home .
Hence I sometimes ask myself the questions that they ask themselves .
When I look at the Council 's proposal , I assume that people will ask themselves this : how can the EU introduce an assessment regime that excludes the plans and projects financed by the European Union itself ?
This is completely unacceptable , and that is precisely how I see it .
The scope of application must be extended to include areas that are financed by the European Union .
<P>
Secondly , the people of Germany , in particular , may well ask themselves why the assessments are to be carried out at state level , national level , regional administration level , and at local level , which will drag the procedures out .
This is indefensible in my view .
It is the real issues that count , not having the same thing assessed at every level .
Therefore we must make it clear that a duplication of effort must be avoided .
Accordingly , Guido Sacconi 's Amendment No 31 has my unequivocal support .
<P>
A third question the people may ask themselves is this : why is nothing happening now that an assessment has taken place which may have raised certain issues ?
Therefore we must make it clear that the regulation is binding .
We certainly cannot have a situation where an assessment is carried out and the findings are then filed away , never to be seen again .
We need a binding commitment to the effect that any findings will be acted on .
Therefore , I emphatically support Amendments Nos 17 and 18 , which provide for us to make the transposition of environmental protection measures following assessment a little more binding in nature .
With this in mind , I wish Mrs Schrling 's report every success .
<SPEAKER ID=55 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="De Palacio">
Mr President , I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur for her constructive approach and for being open to dialogue with all the interested parties - including the Commission - which I hope will finally enable us all to achieve a positive result in relation to this directive .
I would also like to highlight the quality of the report which we are debating today and I would like to talk about what I see as the most significant problems raised in the various amendments that have been tabled and the interventions of the various Members . My sincere thanks for all your comments and points of view .
<P>
Of the key questions , I would firstly like to mention those amendments which involve broadening the scope of the future directive .
The joint position clearly distinguishes the plans for which the strategic environmental assessment is obligatory from those for which it is necessary to make a selection , a screening .
The Commission is inclined towards this approach , provided that the joint position is improved , because we believe that otherwise it would be insufficient .
<P>
Firstly , there must be a balance between the plans for which the strategic environmental assessment is obligatory and those for which we have to make a selection .
<P>
Secondly , the scope of the directive must , in any event , be sufficiently broad and systematically include those plans which have a significant impact on the environment .
<P>
This is why the Commission enthusiastically supports some of Parliament 's amendments which broaden the scope of this directive and do so in a balanced fashion , such as , for example , the second and fifth sections of Amendment No 5 , which have been mentioned by the rapporteur and also by some other speakers , such as Mrs Gonzlez , which proposes also including extractive activities . We also support Amendment No 6 .
<P>
Nevertheless , we believe that some amendments go too far and propose the strategic environmental assessment for plans which will not probably have a significant impact on the environment .
For example , section 4 of Amendment No 5 would make these assessments obligatory for all the plans for the sectors listed in the directive .
The third section of Amendment No 10 would mean an unnecessary burden for the Member States .
<P>
Some amendments limit the directive 's scope even further and actually contradict what I have just said .
Certain amendments would reduce the scope , such as Amendment No 3 , which limits the scope to the plans financed by the EU , or Amendments Nos 11 and 31 , which allow States to choose the level or levels of planning with which these strategic environmental assessments will be carried out .
This would exclude many plans which have an impact on the environment .
Now , if Parliament were to adopt these amendments together with those which broaden the scope to plans with no significant impact , it seems to me that we would end up with a text which is inconsistent with itself .
<P>
These amendments seem to be inspired by the fear of the assessment being duplicated .
In my view , this fear is not sufficiently justified .
Planning is usually carried out at various levels and each one has its own specific characteristics .
The carrying out of assessments at various levels of planning is not a duplication of the assessment , especially given the safeguards contained in Articles 4 , 5 and 10 of the joint position which are intended to prevent just the kind of duplication which Mr Lange , for example , referred to .
<P>
Thirdly , I would point out the amendments which establish the procedures for planning and programming the screening and the definition of the scope of the assessment - Amendments Nos 7 , 8 and 13 - and which require the screening to be carried out on a case by case basis , with the participation of the public in all cases .
I believe that the objective of the screening and the definition of the scope of the assessment is to determine , quickly and efficiently , which plans and which environmental problems are the most relevant .
Establishing the best way to deal with these issues will require practical experience .
We therefore believe it is too soon to establish that all circumstances justify a screening and a broad scope .
We therefore believe that , by incorporating the provisions on the screening and the definition of the scope into their national legislation , Member States would be liable to exceed the requirements of the directive and , for that reason , we will not accept these amendments .
<P>
Nor will we accept the amendment which implies a rejection of the joint text - Amendment No 26 - which contradicts the other approaches .
I do not believe it is necessary to point out that this directive on the strategic environmental assessment is a key instrument for integrating the environment into policies and for promoting sustainable development in the European Union .
I believe that a rejection of the joint position would deal a serious blow to these principles which are at the heart of the Treaties and which must inspire all our policies .
<P>
I understand that this may seem insufficient to some of you , but we must appreciate that sometimes it is not always best to seek perfection .
I believe that we should seek something acceptable , which would be a step forward , rather than reach a deadlock .
Mr President , having carefully examined all the amendments , I can tell you that the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1 , 5 ( sections 2 and 5 ) , 6 , 12 , 28 ( section 1 ) and 29 .
Amendments Nos 9 ( the part which refers to the requirement to justify that the strategic environmental assessment is not necessary ) , 10 ( sections 1 and 2 ) , 15 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 23 , 24 and 25 are acceptable in principle , providing that there is some rewording of its content .
The Commission cannot , however , under any circumstances , accept Amendments Nos 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ( sections 1 , 3 and 4 ) , 7 , 8 , 9 ( in the part on the requirement to justify the need for a strategic environmental assessment ) , 10 ( section 3 ) , 11 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 27 , 28 ( section 2 ) , 30 and 31 .
<SPEAKER ID=56 NAME="President">
Thank you very much , Commissioner .
<P>
The debate is closed .
<P>
The vote will take place today at 12 noon .
<CHAPTER ID=4>
Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues
<SPEAKER ID=66 NAME="Watts">
Mr President , first of all I should like to thank the rapporteur , Mr Bouwman , for his efforts over quite a long period of time in negotiating this very satisfactory proposal which will - as all colleagues have said so far - significantly reduce the amount of pollution dumped illegally into the seas around Europe .
Let us pause and reflect on the scale of the problem .
<P>
Mr Bouwman quite rightly referred to Erika .
This was indeed a tragedy of enormous proportions , with significant and perhaps enduring consequences , but the amount of deliberate spills from oil tankers along all our coasts dwarfs the amount of oil that was spilled from Erika .
It is that problem that this particular proposal aims to tackle .
I am delighted that it will , by ensuring that the Member States provide adequate facilities at all their ports , that their ships and masters are obliged to use them , that the fees system is fair and balanced and above all that 25 % of ships are inspected to ensure these requirements are met .
<P>
I particularly welcome the three-year review , because my only concern is that Member States should implement this legislation that they have now signed up to .
As Mr Jarzembowski will know only too well , on port state control several Member States still do not inspect 25 % of ships .
If they cannot do it on that , what is to say they will do it on this ?
That is our challenge to them : to make sure they adhere to the very worthy agreement that we are hopefully going to be endorsing this week .
<SPEAKER ID=67 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Savary">
Mr President , I would like to start by congratulating Mr Bouwman on the publication of this text , which had been uncertain for a long time .
This is indeed a very important date in maritime history .
A number of our colleagues have said that this text is a precursor to the Erika package and , in many respects , it aims to solve a problem that is even more serious .
This problem concerns acts of ecological piracy , when ships discharge waste at sea , discharging hydrocarbons and a huge amount of waste onto our shorelines .
It is also a victory for Parliament over the Council 's reluctance to imposing a common-sense fee-paying system .
The principle of polluter pays is not working in the case in point , because the polluter cannot be identified .
<P>
If we want to settle this issue , we must move towards a universal fee system , which will be mandatory and not linked to the act of waste treatment .
I am among those who , in their capacity as French Members of Parliament , have made every effort to ensure that this text is published , even acting against the sympathies of their government towards this text or against its reservations .
I am among those who welcome this compromise .
But this compromise cannot be allowed to become a let-out .
It must be implemented and its implementation must be strictly monitored at the level of the Member States .
<P>
In this connection , I would like to give you the position of a Frenchman who has worked so hard , despite the reluctance of his government .
It is clear that this text currently favours large ports and puts small ports , which are not equipped , at a disadvantage .
I therefore call on the Council to help Member States equip small ports , possibly in the framework of the Structural Funds , or in the form of some kind of loan , because small ports are also important elements of national and regional development and of regional and local economies .
And I believe that , if we provide small ports with waste treatment plants , we will secure the success of this directive .
<SPEAKER ID=68 LANGUAGE="SV" NAME="Thors">
Mr President , first of all , I want to congratulate the rapporteur on a commendable result .
I do not normally make a habit of doing this here in Parliament but , since there is good reason for doing so on this occasion , I would thank the rapporteur and the others who have worked on this report .
<P>
As Mr Stenmarck said , we are familiar with this system from the cooperation that has taken place in the Baltic .
Since March 1998 , the Baltic Recommendation has taken such a system for granted .
I should like to say , however , that the agreement is in certain respects a disappointment in the perspective of what has happened in the Baltic .
I should also like to refer to the law we have passed in Finland which stipulates that the fee ought not to depend upon how much waste the vessel leaves at the port .
In Finland , we have had such a system for waste oil since 1 June .
In that respect , the agreement is a disappointment .
<P>
In the last few days , we have learned that , even when it comes to grey water and pollution which is eutrophic in its effects , intentional and unintentional discharges from vessels are the main sources of pollution in the Baltic .
We are used to the fact that the polluter-pays principle does not operate in the case of oil , but there are problems too when it comes to eutrophy caused in other ways .
<P>
We are aware that everyone has been exposed to tough lobbying from the port organisation in Europe which has consistently set its face against this proposal .
The outcome is , therefore , nonetheless a good one .
However , it will be extremely important to follow up the proposal .
The Commissioner is known to have a major interest in the sea and in obtaining a clean environment .
It is important that the follow-up should be carried out seriously so that any supplementary measures can be taken , if need be .
This is a first step , but I would observe that it is important that we should have stricter conditions for the Baltic , which is perhaps far and away the most sensitive inland sea in Europe .
<SPEAKER ID=69 LANGUAGE="FR" NAME="Gollnisch">
Mr President , the report by Mr Bouwman , which is the outcome of a long process , has in the interim become even more topical in France because of the shipwreck of the tanker , the Erika , on the occasion of which the Minister for the Environment did not see fit to interrupt his holiday .
<P>
This report goes some way to preventing marine pollution because it deals with ships that discharge waste at sea .
These acts are not covered by the media in the same way as shipwrecks , but they nevertheless make up most of the pollution of our seas .
<P>
We must however recognise that Community legislation would not be necessary if the Member States of the European Union , who are all signatories to Marpol , the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships , had taken the necessary steps .
Nor is it enough to accuse unscrupulous shipowners or captains ; we must bear in mind that it is often impossible to discharge waste inside the ports , due to the lack of appropriate facilities . The problem of waste storage is also extremely difficult to solve , as this in turn gives rise to the problem of waste treatment .
<P>
Nevertheless , it is difficult to believe that , in an age when agricultural installations are monitored by satellite , it is so difficult to monitor a ship discharging waste at sea .
<P>
We will , however , vote for this report , because it seems to be moving towards better prevention of pollution and because , wishing to remain at a general level , it leaves Member States a certain latitude in their choice of implementation tools .
<SPEAKER ID=70 LANGUAGE="ES" NAME="De Palacio">
Mr President , ladies and gentlemen , I am very happy to be here today to participate in the debate on the approval of the directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues .
<P>
Like previous speakers , I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur , Mr Bouwman , on the excellent work he has done .
During this time he has combined steadfastness with flexibility and intelligence to achieve a result which is acceptable to all the institutions and which will serve to make our seas cleaner .
<P>
I must tell you , for example , that this summer , one of the items in the news in the country I know best , Spain , involved the southern coastlines being affected by the pollution resulting from oil tankers cleaning our their holds in international waters .
This is one of the 100 000 cases which occur throughout the year on Europe 's coastlines .
What we have to do is find out how we can , if not end , then at least limit as far as possible , given the capacity we have , these harmful effects on our seas . In order to end it , we would have to reconsider Maritime Law which , to a large extent , originates from the maritime situation of the 17th and 18th Centuries , which bore no relation to the current situation .
<P>
I believe we have made a great deal of progress which will noticeably improve the marine environment in the face of the deliberate contamination by certain ships - because not all of them do this sort of thing - of our coastlines .
<P>
The current version of this directive has the support of everybody .
It has the support of the shipowners because it provides them with waste facilities , which already exist in some European ports but unfortunately not in all of them , particularly not in the smaller ports , where the Member States will have to make significant investments .
This version of the directive has the support of the ports , because it means that their investments in this type of facility will not put them at a competitive disadvantage , which has unfortunately been the case at times , since some ports have made considerable efforts and others have not .
It has the support of those sectors which are most sensitive to the problem of residues and the fight for sustainable development .
I believe that the whole of this House and also the representatives of the Council and the Commission are included in this group , not only the ecologists , but all those who are concerned about this type of problem .
<P>
We believe that issues such as the planning of residue management , the ships ' delivery obligations , prior notification , the controls - 25 % of the controls - , fees which incentivise the use of port facilities for cleaning the holds of ships , will necessarily contribute to a reduction in marine pollution .
This directive , of course , enjoys the support of the three institutions , the Commission , the Council and Parliament , because we know that it will mean something positive for our citizens .
<P>
It would have been very sad if we had been unable to reach this agreement , which was so longed-for by everyone .
I would like to thank the Council for its flexibility and its constructive will , and Parliament also , especially the rapporteur , for the work carried out over this period and during the conciliation procedure .
The Commission has obtained some commitments which have helped this agreement . These commitments enable us to specify that " significant " means that at least 30 % of the costs of the cleaning of holds in ports must be covered in a general sense , whether or not these port facilities are used .
If over the next three years we see that the Member States ' actions are not sufficient and the desired results are not obtained , the Commission reserves the right to present a new directive clearly establishing a minimum percentage which must be covered by the general fees or by an obligatory cleaning fee in the various European ports .
It is also the Commission 's responsibility to verify that that control of 25 % , another key element of this directive , is carried out by the Member States .
<P>
I would like once again to thank Parliament for standing firm on the need for a strengthened mechanism for reviewing the fees system , which will undoubtedly allow us to move forward and make a detailed study of the current system which we have implemented and the consequences for the environment .
<P>
Mr President , it has already been said in the debates that we have suffered from the impact of the Erika tragedy , but the cleaning out of holds is equivalent to more than one Erika each year on Europe 's coastlines .
We are , therefore , taking a great step forward today .
This does not mean that we are not going to move forward on issues relating to oil tankers and safety in the transport of polluting materials , such as oil and its derivatives , issues which we hope will not only make progress in this House and the Council , but which will also be supplemented by means of additional initiatives which , as the Commission has stated , will be presented shortly .
<SPEAKER ID=71 NAME="President">
Thank you very much , Mrs de Palacio .
<P>
The debate is closed .
<P>
The vote will take place today at 12 noon .
<P>
( The sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12.00 noon )

<SPEAKER ID=72 NAME="Provan">
Madam President , can I impose on your goodwill and Parliament 's goodwill for a moment in welcoming to the diplomatic gallery a delegation from Kazakhstan ?
They are in Parliament today and tomorrow to raise awareness of the former Soviet empire 's nuclear testing programme which impacted not just severely but hugely on their country .
They had 607 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere between 1949 and 1990 .
This has left part of their country completely devastated and I hope Parliament will give them a sympathetic hearing in the seminar they are holding here this afternoon .
They have a huge problem in raising world awareness of this former Soviet problem .
We shall also be discussing the problems of the submarine that sank , another part of the nuclear legacy that has been left by the Soviet Union .
<SPEAKER ID=73 NAME="President">
Thank you , Mr Provan .
I am very happy to welcome this delegation .
<P>
<CHAPTER ID=5>
Votes
<SPEAKER ID=171 NAME="President">
The next item is the communication on Mr Verheugen 's statement on enlargement .
<P>
I welcome President Prodi to the Chamber and I thank him for being present .
<P>
I must warn you that President Prodi will have to leave us at 4.35 p.m. to travel to New York for the Millennium meeting .
We are nevertheless grateful to him for having made the effort to take part in this debate and , without further ado , I shall give him the floor .
<SPEAKER ID=172 LANGUAGE="IT" NAME="Prodi">
Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , I wanted to make a personal statement before this house , together with Commissioner Verheugen , in order to clarify the political significance of the interview with him in the Sddeutsche Zeitung of 2 September and the political significance of a number of ensuing press statements .
Mr Verheugen will shortly explain to you exactly what he said and why he said it .
<P>
For my part , I want to reaffirm solemnly before you , Members of Parliament , the full commitment of my Commission to the great task of enlargement .
I have repeatedly stressed that enlargement is the Commission 's single most important task and that the Commission is committed to starting the process off along the right track .
<P>
There is a pressing need for this new page in the history of the Union to be completed , in accordance with the objectives set by the European Council and the Commission itself and frequently presented before this House .
As you are well aware , this is a highly complex issue from a political point of view , and with your strong , unwavering support , the Commission is conducting the negotiation process transparently and objectively , with rigorous adherence to the conditions laid down in its mandate .
<P>
The democracies of the countries which are going to join the Union are making a huge effort , which we are in constant danger of underestimating .
However , this effort must be matched on our side by considerable political generosity , expressed in many different ways .
The Union 's first act of generosity , and I must stress that once again , must be to be ready to open its doors to new Members by January 2003 .
In order to put our house in order , therefore , the Union 's main concern must be to agree in Nice , at the end of the year , upon a high-quality institutional reform which will prevent our system from being watered down .
<P>
There is another side to the political generosity which it is our duty to display : we must all make every effort to win as many citizens as possible over to supporting the enlargement process .
For my part , I fear that the public is not yet sufficiently convinced .
<P>
In seeking democratic support for this historic enterprise , we are certainly not attempting to delay the process but to reinforce it .
It is clearly up to each individual Member State or candidate country to decide which ways and means to use to ensure support from its citizens .
In particular , the national procedures for ratifying enlargement are purely national issues .
It is certainly not the intention of the Commission or Commissioner Verheugen to interfere in this matter .
<P>
Nevertheless - and this is a different matter - we must all play our part in making clear to our citizens what is at stake .
I have always found Parliament , before which I sit today , to be fully committed to doing just this : explaining to our fellow citizens , over and over again , that enlargement is not a threat but a historic opportunity in all respects , and , above all , a historic step towards establishing peace in our continent .
<P>
The loyal commitment of all the Commissioners to the Commission 's policies is a hallmark of my presidency , and , as this House is aware , I do not lack the means to enforce that if necessary .
<P>
In this particular case , I am entirely confident that Gnter Verheugen fully supports the Commission 's policy , which this House has approved on many occasions .
I therefore have every confidence in his ability to bring the enlargement negotiations to a swift , successful conclusion .
<SPEAKER ID=173 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Verheugen">
. ( DE ) Madam President , ladies and gentlemen , I am very grateful that we are having this debate , because it gives me the opportunity to offer a word of explanation - and therefore have the final word , as I see it - on the interview that unleashed this furore .
<P>
I made the point , in this interview - in a personal capacity and in a purely German context - that referenda can help to involve the public more closely in major European projects that change the constitutional nature of the State .
I cited the Treaty of Maastricht as an example of this , and not enlargement .
Finally , I also said that the German constitution makes no provision for this .
No one regrets more than I do the fact that this statement was taken to mean that I was calling for a referendum on enlargement .
I hereby declare that I did not raise such a demand , either for Germany or for any other country for that matter .
<P>
<P>
If you read the text with complete impartiality and do not rely on second-hand reports , you will come to no other conclusion .
<P>
But what was the real message ?
The message was this : ' we want enlargement and we want it to be implemented as quickly as possible and as comprehensively as is necessary . '
A huge number of Members of this House know that for a year now , I have been trying , with a passion , to get a direct message across to the citizens of the candidate countries and the Member States , to the effect that we really do want these new Members .
<P>
What I am trying to do , is to breathe life into a process that could easily slip into pure practicalities .
We want to secure peace and stability throughout Europe .
We want to give young democracies the chance to participate , on equal terms , in Europe 's political and economic development .
We want to boost Europe 's role in international competition .
We have no alternative .
Since the Prodi Commission took office , the outcome of the enlargement negotiations has been positive .
The progress reports that the Commission is due to submit in the autumn will reveal that the candidate countries have made an enormous amount of progress and are approaching the stage when they will be ready for accession .
<P>
The Commission is intending to propose new elements for the negotiating strategy in the autumn , which should make it possible to proceed even more rapidly with negotiations and to tackle the key issues that arise at the negotiating table .
<P>
I might point out that it will only be possible to make this kind of headway in close cooperation with the Member States and the European Parliament .
I would expressly like to thank the European Parliament for its outstanding cooperation and for the unconditional support it has given me , so far at any rate .
I also warmly commend the European Parliament and its Members for their positive role in the efforts being made to raise awareness of this historic project amongst the people of Europe .
I have always advocated that we should obtain the broadest possible support amongst the public , and highlight , in a wide-ranging public debate , the major benefits that the accession of new Member States would bring .
<P>
We must convince people that enlargement will be politically and economically advantageous to both sides from the very outset .
We need to have a wide-ranging , democratic debate on this historic project .
These were the basic ideas I wanted to bring out in the interview .
<P>
( Applause ) The Commission has absolutely no intention - and it was most certainly the very last thing I intended - of introducing any new political conditions into the negotiating process or the decision-making process .
The strategy has been laid down by the European Council .
The Commission pursues this strategy with vigour .
<P>
And as President Prodi has already said , it makes perfect sense for the accession treaties to be ratified in the individual Member States in accordance with their respective legal systems .
Three conclusions can be drawn from this , to my mind .
Firstly , we must wage a broadly-based communication campaign in the Member States and the candidate countries .
The Commission has already made the necessary preparations to this end. Secondly , we ought not to dismiss any fears or concerns people may have , rather we should talk openly to them and help them .. ..
<P>
( Applause ) ...
to seize the new opportunities and rise to the new challenges .
I am thinking , in particular , of the border regions .
The Commission is working on a programme here too .
<P>
And thirdly , when it comes to issues beset with fears and emotions - and they are there in the enlargement process ; take , for example , the issue of immigration - we must proceed with the greatest caution and keep a sense of perspective as far as we possibly can .
But there are ways and means of solving these problems .
And these must , and will be , decided on when the time is right , and in the appropriate manner .
<P>
( Applause )
<SPEAKER ID=174 LANGUAGE="DE" NAME="Poettering">
