Strasbourg, 16/03/2001 (Agence Europe) - By adopting, by 276 votes, against 200 and 27 abstentions, the report by the Dutch Liberal Jan Wiebenga, the European Parliament approved, with several amendments trying to guarantee the rights of refugees and notably children, the draft Directive relating to minimum standards for granting temporary protection in case of a massive influx of displaced persons and measures aiming to ensure a balance between the efforts agreed by the Member States to host these people and to bear the consequences of taking them in. While the Parliament rejected an amendement, previously adopted in parliamentary committee on the initiative of the EPP/ED group, in the aim of restraining the possibilities for regrouping families and limiting the hosting of unmarried couples. (See EUROPE of 12/13 March, pages 13/14).
Following its rapporteurs, the Belgian and German Christian Democrats Gerard Deprez, Hartmut Nassauer and Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL, Danish), the EP also rejected four initiatives: - reserving to the Council the powers of implementation concerning the methods for assessing visa requests (Finnish initiative); - reserving to the Council the powers for implementation with regards to the control and monitoring of borders (Portuguese initiative); - concerning the mutual recognition of decisions repatriating third country nationals (French initiative); - on the period during which third country nationals, exempted from visa requirements, may freely move in the territory of the Member States (Portuguese initiative). The Member States concerned are invited to withdraw their initiatives (see EUROPE of 12/13 March, p.13).
The Parliament did not on the other hand follow its rapporteur Timothy Kirkhope (British Conservative) who proposed to approve, with a few amendments, the initiative from the French Republic in view of adopting the Council Directive relating to the harmonisation of sanctions imposed on hauliers carrying onto the territory of the Member States third country nationals without the documents needed for being admitted. It decided to reject this initiative and calls for a decision, within the Council and in collaboration with the Commission, on the drafting of a Community immigration policy (see EUROPE of 6 March, p.14).
During the debate, many speakers criticised the increase in legislative initiatives that only tackle an isolated aspect of the global problem of immigration and asylum, while the European Union should draw-up a more coherent policy. Mr Wiebenga welcomed the work accomplished by the Commission to gain the accession of the Member States to a proposal guaranteeing a fair taking on board of refugees in case of a massive influx following crises or wars such as those that affected the Balkans. It reproaches the Member States for dragging their feet and recalls that during the Kosovo war, only Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Austria hosted refugees, he insists on the development of solidarity that is not only financial, but also physical. Mr Deprez felt that the Finnish and Portuguese initiatives aiming to reserve the competence of implementation to the Council constitute a true denial of democracy. Also explaining that they are contrary to the Community spirit and show that the Council wants to perpetuate the intergovernmental method to the detriment of the Parliament, which would be deprived of all information, and of the Commission, for which it casts doubts of the competence for initiative and implementation. Denouncing the new walls that the Member States are trying to erect around Europe, Mrs Frahm called for the rejection of the Portuguese initiative concerning visas. Feeling that the Commission is better placed to defend the Community interests, Mr Nassauer favoured the rejection of the French initiative concerning decision to repatriate. Mr Kirkhope underlined the need for a fair treatment of hauliers in all the Member States and called for the limited responsibility of hauliers.
With regards to the draft Directive on temporary protection, Commissioner Antonio Vitorino recalled that this was a case of introducing a mechanism allowing to answer crisis situations, while guaranteeing a fair distribution of refugees. The decision to host will be taken by the Council and the distribution will be decided at the same time. Mr Vitorino insisted over the fact that it is only in the truly extraordinary circumstances that a Member States could refuse to take part. I cannot guarantee that the system will work, but we have, either way, tried to draw-up an instrument that should enable to guarantee both the principal of solidarity in the physical hosting and that of financial solidarity, said the Commissioner before indicating that the Parliament's amendments, which he would either support in form or spirit, will be a source of inspiration in the negotiations that are opening with the Council and that he hopes to see concluded next May.
Speaking of the different Member State initiatives, Mr Vitorino also criticised the "fragmentary approach which is not suitable" and stressed the need to tackle immigration as a global issue. He considered it strange to have to answer MEPs on initiatives taken by former EU Council Presidencies that are no longer here. Regarding carriers, he said that the "current proposal is only a first step" and that the Commission will be developing, in cooperation with the humanitarian organisations and carriers, a proposal that will cover all kinds of transport. Mr Vitorino pointed out that the Commission cannot subscribe to the provisions of the Finnish and Portuguese initiatives that reserve implementation powers for the Council. He stated that the Commission shares the opinion expressed by Ms Frahm who said it is not appropriate to simply regulate the situation of a single category (persons not subject to visa obligation), and that the Commission will soon present an overall proposal on the free movement of third country nations within the EU. Finally, as far as expulsions are concerned, the Commission considers it necessary to adopt common standards and principles before finalising a legal framework. It will adopt a communication on a common policy concerning the return of migrants, which will give preference to voluntary return.