Brussels, 22/07/2008 (Agence Europe) - For many years now, the civil liberties committee (LIBE) and the European Parliament have been calling for a global approach and for a coherent and balanced European immigration policy. The fight against illegal immigration is one of the Union's policy priorities. In the context of the Javier Moreno Sanhez report on illegal immigration (2006), MEPs calls for energetic measures to combat illegal employment by using a whole range of sanctions against employers using illegal labour, and by stepping up work inspections. This was how the chairman of the EP civil liberties committee, Gérard Deprez (ALDE, Belgium), introduced the hearing on the “penalties” directive, held in Brussels on Wednesday 16 July. Work on this was conducted in close cooperation between Claudio Fava (PES, Italy), rapporteur for the LIBE committee, and Edit Bauer (EPP-ED, Slovakia), rapporteur for the EP's committee on employment and social affairs, Gérard Deprez explained. His point of view was shared by Jean-Louis de Brouwer, Director for Immigration in the DG JHA at the European Commission, who said the text of the directive “was where two policies - on immigration and employment - came together”. He went on to add that the parameters proposed were limited but vital, since the penalties in different member states were extremely unequal. MEPs will examine the text in codecision procedure this autumn. EU home ministers will hold a debate on the proposal during the JHA Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 July.
Claudio Fava, who presented the philosophy and architecture of the directive in question (see EUROPE 9500/9018)), wondered how the Commission's proposal for a directive, which he said was “excellent”, could be improved. According to the rapporteur, it would be necessary to: (1) improve the definition, limiting responsibility in relations between subcontractors and those calling on them to deal with illegal workers. In short, employers must assume their responsibilities; (2) keep a direct relationship between all the links in the chain; (3) foresee different treatment depending on whether the employer is a company or an individual; (4) ensure salary arrears due to workers are paid before workers return to their home country and not after as foreseen in the Commission's proposal; and (5) recognise the role of the trade union for defending illegal workers (including minors) before the law. As far as work inspections go, Claudio Fava believes that the Council proposal is better than the Commission's. The latter considers that at least 10% of all businesses set up on the territory of a member state should come under inspections every year to control employment of third country nationals (a percentage that Mr Fava finds “difficult to manage”), whereas the Council suggests that this should be the case for 5% of all companies.
Jean-Louis de Brouwer spoke of the Commission's two question marks on the suggestions put forward by Claudio Fava, saying: (1) with regard to bearing the cost of repatriation: “We really believe that, when it is a matter of one of the elements of the penalty to be imposed on the employer, we do not really see why it should be the public budget, that is taxpayers' money, that should be indirectly used to contribute to the cost of repatriation when the situation of exploitation is the result of a given, identified employer”; and (2) on the idea of leaving the employer a period of grace to possibly regularise the situation, “our feeling is that this could have a completely counter-productive effect. The impact assessment analysis manifestly shows that a number of employers find that illegal workers are an extraordinary reserve of illegal labour. Simply the fact that, even if they are found out, even if their failings are detected, they have a period of grace in which to regularise the situation, this could have quite the contrary effect and encourage them to continue in their illegal practice”.
Speaking on behalf of the French EU Presidency, Jean-Christophe Peaucelle, who heads the European Affairs section of the French Immigration Ministry, said “there is a consensus on the need to work together to define a common policy on immigration which is both coherent and fair”. He takes the view that the text “aims to punish to set an example” although the proposal had already been pared down through negotiations in Council “which is inevitable to get a compromise”. Mr Peaucelle hoped the directive would be adopted by the French EU Presidency, which would necessitate a first reading agreement with the Parliament.
Debate shows employment should be used as base to combat illegal immigration
Stavros Lambrionidis (PES, Greece) asked: “Why should we devote so many resources to tackling the employment of illegal immigrants when the main problem in the member states is to make sure labour laws are enforced, for [legally] resident migrants too”. He went on to say: “I am in favour of tackling exploitation … but I get the feeling that is not the aim of this proposal”.
Ignasi Guardans (ALDE, Spain) considered it politically dangerous “to ignore the fact that, if there is an illegal job, someone else is unemployed”, as it is obvious there is a demand for workers. In his view, the Commission should have put forward two proposals that would work together: “one to punish, and the other to ensure that the positions in question are filled with legal employees”. Jean-Louis de Brouwer shared the analysis made by both deputies, namely that the phenomenon of undeclared work exists, as does illegal work, its economic reality and its significance in relation to the labour and employment markets. At the initiative of Commissioner Vladimir Spidla, the Commission adopted a proposal on combating illegal work and, under Portuguese EU Presidency, held the first meeting of employment and immigration ministers to discuss the issue. The highly national nature of employment market management policies was highlighted, leaving the Commission unable to intervene on such issues, Mr de Brouwer recalled. Jean-Christophe Peaucelle noted the parallel between management of legal migration in relation to needs and the fight against illegal immigration. “You can't have one without the other. Today we are focusing on the penalties directive, but we must think together. As far as the economic reality is concerned, we cannot yet speak of a European labour market”.
Catelene Passchier, Confederal Secretary of the European Trade Union Congress (ETUC), expressed concern about the proposal for a directive which gives people the impression that the problem of illegal immigration can be solved with repressive measures. ETUC wants an open debate on illegal work and hopes to place emphasis on enforcing existing standards, Ms Passchier stressed. “Member states should have the option of developing more positive and effective approaches … including legalising the status of the people concerned”, the trade unionist said, hoping that the EP will not take the Commission's proposal on board. Speaking on behalf of BusinessEurope, Steven D'Haeseleer, social affairs adviser, said he was “very interested in the proposal” put forward by the Commission, stressing that illegal work is, in the eyes of honest businesses, “unfair competition”. Mr D'Haeseleer made a number of specific comments, including: - the proposal is contrary to labour law, which has consequences for business, and does not abide by subsidiarity; - subsidiary responsibility is not realistic for BusinessEUrope (which totally supports the report by Edit Bauer): - indeed, the main contractor cannot control what subcontractors do; - subsidiarity: BusinessEurope considers that the priorities consist in establishing and having sanctions complied with at employer level; - and administrative penalties must be dissuasive and qualitative. If this is not the case, then legal workers run the risk of penalties. Marco Barbieri, Vice-President of the Regional Council of Puglia (Italy) responsible for employment, presented the experience of his region where one sees “forced complicity between the illegal worker and his employer, who calls on inspectors-controllers at the end of the illegal activity so that the worker has to flee and the employer does not have to pay him”. In order to protect the market, this forced complicity must be stopped, said Mr Barbieri. There should also be a time limit before forced repatriation and a third person should be designated to assist the illegal worker, Marco Barbieri said.
Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL/Italy) was of the view that the proposal should provide for premiums for illegal workers who denounce their employers as “with this directive, we risk penalising the migrants when we should be punishing the employers”. “Let's make an effort allowing for the possibility of the workers staying on in the EU to have their status regularised”, he said, calling the proposal “an extension of the return directive”. Simon Busuttil (EPP-ED, Malta) said the proposal was needed to “fight against black-market employment in our countries”. He commented that the debate was not on an instrument for regularisation but said that “penalties as severe as closing down the company concerned was going too far. That should be reserved for criminals”. Referring to the British daily, The Guardian, Jean Lambert (Greens/EFA, UK) spoke of the danger of racism that can result from inspections that are often carried out in small companies headed by a person of colour, but not in large retail outlets. Maria Grazia Pagano (PES, Italy) said it was necessary to combat illegal immigration on the basis of work. Edit Bauer called for progress to be made at the same time on work, immigration and competition. Metka Roksandic (Slovenian national at the workers group at the European Economic and Social Committee) presented the Committee's own-initiative on this issue, taking a stance in favour of the proposal that comes under human rights. (G.B./B.C./transl.jl)