President. – The next item is the continuation of the debate on the report (A5-0086/2003) by Mrs Cerdeira Morterero, on behalf of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, on the amended proposal for a Council directive on the right to family reunification (COM(2002) 225 – C5-0220/2002 – 1999/0258(CNS)).

  Hazan (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted first of all to congratulate my colleague, Carmen Cerdeira, on the excellent work that she has done on this very important issue. Indeed this text constitutes the first directive on legal immigration since competence for this area moved to European level.

I should like to say straight away, however, that I regret two things: firstly, that we have had to wait so long; secondly, that the end result is such a cautious position, the unfortunate consequence of a policy that is based exclusively on controlling migratory flows, despite the objectives set in Tampere.

After more than three years of fierce negotiations, after two markedly different proposals, despite a European Parliament opinion expressing support for the first proposal and despite the excellent work done by our rapporteur, the text that we have today contains minimal provisions on family reunification and, moreover, the Council will take absolutely no account at all of the European Parliament's opinion, which will nevertheless – at least, I hope so – confirm our previous position. Tampere had, it is true, given us a glimpse of something entirely different, but at this stage it is unfortunately a certainty that the process that was begun in 1999 is turning out contrary to expectations. Parliament really must vote in favour of Mrs Cerdeira's report tomorrow and in so doing clearly express its rejection of a fortress Europe, of the kind that is in the process of being created, and it must also clearly declare its support for the right to live in a family, which is an absolutely essential right in all of our democracies.

That is why we will be voting against – and we are against – the provision that allows the Member States, in certain cases, to refuse entry to a child aged over 12 years.

We also reject the proposal that authorises a waiting period of three years and we are unfortunately obliged to note that this episode constitutes yet more proof of the lack of political will on the part of the Member States to share competence for immigration.

It is not by adopting this kind of overcautious attitude that we are going to resolve the problem of illegal immigration; nor is this the way to avoid secondary movements of asylum seekers, which is nevertheless one of the main objectives of this directive.

In short, with the various steps backward in the second directive and the various …

(The President invited the speaker to conclude)

... we are a very long way from achieving the objectives set in 1999 by the Tampere Summit for bringing this field within the Community system as such.

  Karamanou (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, I too should like to start by warmly congratulating the rapporteur on the excellent standard of her report, as the Commissioner acknowledged earlier, and I should also like to say how pleased I am that the Greek Presidency managed, after long consultations, to close – it did not start but it closed – this chapter on reuniting the families of legal immigrants, which had been pending before the Council for several years. However, Commissioner, it is my opinion that you should take also serious account of the proposals of the European Parliament.

As chairman of Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, I think this initiative on family reunification is important, because it will be especially helpful to the women and children who are often not in a position to follow their husbands in their attempt to emigrate to the countries of the European Union in search of a better fate for themselves and their families.

Let me give you an example. Three years ago, I was invited to a general assembly of the Bangladeshi community in Athens. I entered a room where there were thousands of people, but only a few women. It was when I asked why the women were not taking part in the assembly that I realised for the first time the extent of the problem. They replied that their women and children were back home, in their countries, because they did not have the right to bring them here. I am highly satisfied, therefore, that – even with this decision by the Council which does not fully satisfy Parliament – a serious decision has been taken on this matter. Similarly, one particularly positive point of the directive is that the rights of the members of the reunited family are defined, rights relating to education and employment, in order both to ensure that they are smoothly integrated into the society of the Member State and to safeguard their employment rights, so that they do not turn into cheap labour on the job market.

Finally, I must stress that family reunification does not just form part of efforts to achieve a cohesive immigration policy; it is also a means of strengthening the Community's own social policy.

  Vitorino, Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again I should like to thank Mrs Cerdeira for her report and say very sincerely that I agree with several of the comments that have been made during the course of the debate about the minimal nature of the agreement that we have reached.

I can tell you that after three years of negotiations I am convinced that it was impossible to go beyond the level that was reached thanks to the commitment of the Greek Presidency, as Mrs Karamanou has stressed. I am also sure, however, that this is not the last time that we will discuss family reunification. It is a process that is going to evolve and I hope that two years after the directive has been incorporated into national law we will be able to assess the added value of the minimal standards that we are about to adopt and see what further avenues might be explored on family reunification then. I do in fact think that it is a fundamental right, that it is key to the success of our integration policy and that, as the Member States develop their own integration policies, family reunification will become an increasingly important lever to help to integrate migrant workers successfully into the host European societies.

I do not imagine that it will be possible to depart from the essential shape of the political agreement that the Council has adopted. That is why I would ask Parliament to show understanding for the fact that the Commission itself is not going to move away from this political agreement either. I should like to add, however, that this political agreement must not be any weaker than what is already on the table. That is why, for example, although I agreed in the past not to include subsidiary protection and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection in this proposal – at the request, incidentally, of the European Parliament amongst others – I do not think that it is acceptable to exclude refugees from this directive. You see, we have to recognise that refugees have to have a right to family reunification, that this right needs to be included somewhere in a legal standard and that this instrument is the appropriate place to enshrine such a right to family reunification.

Finally, as Mrs Hazan said, this is the first instrument on legal immigration. I think that it sends out a strong political message: a European Union policy on immigration cannot only be a repressive policy, it also has to be a policy of legal immigration. I hope that this first instrument – as minimalist as it is – will form a foundation on which we can build the political will to adopt the Commission's other legislative initiatives on legal immigration, because if you are going to have an immigration policy that is not only credible and consistent, but also respectful of our common values, you need to have a complete set of legal instruments.

  Cerdeira Morterero (PSE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, as well as all the Members who have stayed here until this time, but I believe that the occasion warrants it, since this is an important issue and we have been waiting for it for a long time. I entirely agree with what the Commissioner has said, but there have been certain statements made during the debate which I would like to clarify.

At no point does this report on family reunification allow for situations such as those Mr Pirker has mentioned: polygamy or the possibility of applying this directive to future wives and I would like this to be recorded in the Minutes because I think this is a very serious statement which can only be born of ignorance or bad faith.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.