Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 14 February 2006 - Strasbourg

5. Local border traffic (debate)

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0406/2005) by Mr Mihael Brejc, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the Schengen Convention and the Common Consular Instructions [COM(2005)0056 C6-0049/2005 2005/0006(COD)].

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for the very good work done on this proposal. I am very pleased to note that once again the three institutions – the Council, the Commission and Parliament – have been able to work together very effectively and very quickly within the framework of the codecision procedure.

A very good precedent for interinstitutional cooperation was set last year by the agreement reached on the Schengen border code, to which this regulation represents the necessary complement. We can therefore say that with the adoption of this regulation the legislative component of our integrated border management strategy is fully completed; and, if I may say so, I very much hope that we will continue to work together effectively in the future, for instance on the decision-making process and on other very sensitive issues such as the legal basis for the VIS and SIS.

The adoption of this proposal will be a very important and balanced step forward, as it will provide the necessary flexibility at our external borders to facilitate crossings by bone fide people residing in a border area without, however, creating any security loopholes. This is particularly important for the new Member States, especially in view of their forthcoming integration into the Schengen area, where they will become responsible for the control of the Schengen external borders and will thus carry out checks on behalf of all Schengen states.

In this context I wish to recall that the adoption of Community rules on local border traffic is included in the much broader European neighbourhood strategy. It is thus one of the measures aimed at strengthening cross-border cooperation with the EU neighbours and people-to-people contact.

Finally I conclude by stressing again that the text that is under examination today is a very balanced and important proposal.

  Mihael Brejc (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (SL) The purpose of this regulation is to lay down common rules on the criteria and conditions for establishing a local border traffic regime on the external land borders of the Member States. Given that the original material – the Commission’s proposal – placed serious demands on the people who live along the European Union’s external borders, in this report I have highlighted the following:

We need to make crossing the border easier for local residents who have good reasons for making frequent crossings of a Member State’s external border, and we need to prevent illegal migration and the potential security threat posed by criminal activities. The proposed regulation seeks to regulate the issue of local border traffic, which involves frequent, sometimes daily, crossing of the border for the reasons of attending school, work, or family ties, and we therefore need to take into account that these daily migrants return each day to their homes.

Owing in part to historical, geographical and social circumstances, the external borders differ, and life along the border should not be allowed to deteriorate. We need to consider the actual circumstances on the external borders and enable Member States to the greatest possible extent to maintain the good practices that they have established to date through bilateral agreements.

The essence of the amendments which I propose and which are in the text:

Instead of the special ‘L visa’, local border residents will be issued a so-called local border traffic permit, which will incorporate all the security standards, and most importantly, will not be stamped upon every crossing of the border. A differentiation between the various external land borders will not be necessary, since in the coming years Member States will sooner or later enter into the Schengen area.

The local border area – this definition has triggered considerable debate. We have agreed that it should not exceed 30 km, and possibly 50 km in exceptional cases. Indeed by increasing the border area, we could find that it would no longer be possible to meet security standards. In no way, however, is it possible to equate local border areas with ethnic boundaries. A local border resident is a citizen of a third country who has resided for at least one year in the border area, while in the debate we have harmonised the proposal containing a whole range of exceptions involving marriage, inheritance and so forth.

In bilateral agreements Member States lay down the longest permitted period of residence, which may not exceed three months in total. In other words, this is a decision whereby an individual from a third country may reside in that border zone for three months in total. Where special circumstances are involved, certain privileges need to be permitted with regard to crossing the border outside established border crossings. There are, for instance, farmers that have half of the property they own in their own country and half in another country, and of course they cannot take their implements with them every time they cross the border.

The adoption of this regulation will show that the European Union is not closing its borders, and is not setting up inhuman conditions along its external borders. The European Union wishes to ensure adherence to the relevant security standards, but in no way to make life harder along the border. The coexistence of people on both sides of the border and their cooperation are important elements of stability and security along the external borders. For this reason another extremely important achievement of this regulation is that through bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries, in other words third countries, Member States will create the conditions for the development of border areas, which are for the most part less well developed.

This regulation provides a basis for the strengthening of economic, cultural and other ties on both sides of the border, so it is important for the border countries as well as for the European Union as a whole. May I also point out that we had several rounds of harmonisation with the Commission and the Council. Although this took some time, the negotiations were successful, such that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs unanimously adopted this regulation in its debate and in voting.

Permit me, Mr President, to close by thanking all those that cooperated in this process, in other words the Commission, the Council, and particularly Mr Cashman and Mr Lax, who made especially active contributions to this report.

(Applause)

  Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, by opening up the borders between the European Communities’ Member States and by establishing the four freedoms of the European Union, we, in Europe, have brought into being one of the freest societies in the world, but freedom without security is nothing, and that is why especial significance attaches to the security of the external borders that are thus created to the East, to the Balkans, and across the Mediterranean, the latter with its own uniquely serious problems. These borders must be as secure as possible, and that will require the use of the most modern technologies. At the same time, they must also be as flexible as possible, in order not to impose needless restrictions on businesses in the border regions and on the people who live there.

For that to happen, two things are required. One is integrated administration of the border, an administration shared by the customs authorities and the border police, something that cannot, unfortunately, always be guaranteed, but this integrated administration must also be shared with the neighbouring countries. The fact is that a border is truly secure and flexible only when those on both sides of it work as closely as possible together, and it is certainly one of the tasks of our new neighbourhood policy to get this aspect of bilateral security addressed by both sides jointly.

The other thing we need to do is to create a ‘frontier worker’s card’ – ‘local border traffic permit’ is a splendid term, but a very long and bureaucratic-sounding one – for those people who live on the border and have to cross it frequently. Only if we do both these things will we prevent the people living in the new border regions sustaining any unnecessary disadvantages.

(Applause)

  Ewa Klamt, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, what is termed local border traffic is a single stone in the big mosaic picture of the protection of the external borders. On the one hand, we are securing the external borders against illegal crossings and the phenomena often occurring at them, such as the smuggling of drugs, the trafficking of human beings, prostitution and other forms of organised crime. We can also, on the other hand, make daily life easier for those who live on opposite sides of the external borders, but do so nonetheless as good neighbours.

It is only reasonable to secure our borders against the entry of unwelcome persons in so far as possible, but it is equally reasonable to want to make it easier for the people at the borders to live together, for – as many Members have already said – we do not want Europe to be a fortress, but rather a community that coexists amicably with its neighbours. It is for that reason that I believe the rapporteur is right to suggest that the Commission proposal be amended so as not to introduce new arrangements for existing borders within Europe. We are, after all, working on the assumption that the Member States will by then have transposed the Schengen acquis, that SIS II will be successfully up and running, and so Europe will no longer need additional internal rules of this kind.

This report by Mr Brejc is a good example of successful cooperation between Members of this House across party boundaries, and a model to follow as regards successful cooperation with the Council under our codecision arrangements. All of us, together, have managed to put together well thought-out and practical solutions for the day-to-day coexistence of our fellow citizens and their neighbours, and for that I would like most warmly to thank the rapporteur and his shadow opposite numbers as well.

(Applause)

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Vice-President Frattini for his comments. As the rapporteur on the Schengen border code, I believe that we did set the precedent for close and effective cooperation.

We all know the substance of this report. It is about making people’s lives easier and improving the daily lives of our citizens. Arguably, that is what we should focus on more and more. It reinforces the Schengen border code. We know that, once we have secure external borders, freedom of movement within the EU will be much simpler and more easily controlled. Equally, we must remember that we need to be sensible. Like Mr Brejc, Mr Lax, and others, I myself have adopted that approach.

If what comes from the Commission is sensible, we only need to amend it to improve, simplify or clarify. That must be our approach. We will then bring forward effective and well-understood regulation that is easy to implement at our borders.

As the shadow rapporteur on the Visa Information System, that is also the approach I want to take. I know the rapporteur for the Schengen Information System is here today and I believe that, by cooperating in order to secure our borders and make sure that the information we have is used effectively, we will enhance the single biggest benefit of being a member of the EU, which is freedom of movement. Congratulations to all concerned.

(Applause)

  Henrik Lax, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, I too wish to thank the rapporteur for his very constructive work. The regulation on local border traffic that we now have before us has proved to be very important to the EU’s external border regions, especially in the east. Traditionally, such border districts are often viewed as peripheral and as being marked by slow development. Believing that to be the case can easily bring that very situation about. It is therefore a question of giving clear signals to the border area populations to the effect that they must be allowed to have contacts in all directions and that their horizons are not to be bounded by their countries’ borders.

Being able to move smoothly across borders is the basis for contacts, friendship, trade and creative innovation. There are no doubt many people living on, for example, the Russian-Estonian border or the Slovenian-Croatian border who will be grateful for the very flexible solution now being proposed.

When it comes to promoting contacts between people, consistency is required. It is not consistent to begin, as now, by taking positive steps regarding local border traffic and similarly positive steps in the form of the bilateral visa agreement with Russia reached in October of last year, and then almost to double the visa charge from EUR 35 to EUR 65, something that the Council of Ministers is in actual fact in a quandary about taking a decision on next week in response to a proposal by France. If that decision is taken, it will not of course be long before the Russian side too increases the charge to approximately the same amount. It goes without saying that this would deal a heavy blow to tourism on the borders. For example, anyone in Eastern Finland wanting to cross by boat to the Russian side of the Saima Canal would be forced to pay more in visa charges than for the crossing itself. Doubling the charge would be wholly contrary to our objective where visa policy is concerned. There is no more effective way of putting a stop to natural contacts between people than by implementing such a shock increase in the cost of a visa. The fact is that the trend should be in the opposite direction.

I therefore call on all my fellow Members to put this period to good use and, at the eleventh hour, to contact their governments in order to forestall this decision. The right hand needs to know what the left hand is doing. We must live up to our values. As Mrs Klamt too emphasised recently, we must not give sustenance to the idea that the EU is constructing walls around itself.

  Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the previous speaker that if we adopt this text we will have to do all we can to prevent governments from torpedoing it. In 1957, when the six Member States of the European Community accepted the Treaties of Rome, it seemed that the achievement of the so-called four freedoms, which is to say the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons, was only a distant prospect. After the introduction of the so-called Schengen system, the removal of customs barriers between the Member States of the EU and the implementation of a series of measures to regulate relations between states in the area in question, the realisation of this goal came a lot closer. The issue today is not whether it will be possible in the near future to secure the free movement of persons between the Member States of the EU, but rather to determine a realistic and rapid timetable for the implementation of this freedom.

In the interim, it would be appropriate to come to an arrangement at least over what is referred to as local border traffic. Such an arrangement would in the meantime improve the outlook for bilateral relations between states that are not in the Schengen system but which do belong to the EU or to the European Economic Area. The authors of the measures under discussion are aware that the EU covers only one half of Europe’s geographical area. It is in our own interests to ensure that we are as open as possible towards our neighbours. These measures create the possibility for setting up local border traffic with non-Member States. Let us not forget that, from 1 January 2007, this will entail land borders with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldavia, Macedonia, Serbia, Albania, Croatia and Turkey, and that such measures will be taken as a positive signal by neighbouring states. They will open the door to mutual cooperation in the border regions, provided of course that we reject the measures to which Mr Lax alluded. The introduction of special kinds of visa and other conditions contained in the measures will make it possible, on the basis of assessments, to make use of this special regime to strengthen cooperation with all of our neighbouring states. This would also be very valuable for the future development of relations especially with larger partners such as Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. In my view, there are a number of proposed amendments aimed at improving the chances of these measures working, with only a minority seeking to amend the rules to make them less workable. I should therefore like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to draw a careful distinction between these two categories when voting on the proposed amendments. Do not forget that the Directive represents a model of neighbourly relations and thereby gives a signal of whether or not the EU wants to be an open society or to erect barriers against neighbouring states along its borders.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, there are many people living on our borders for whom the eastward enlargement changed little, since the people in many border regions had stolen a march on the politicians and local border traffic had long been part of daily life. That makes it all the more important that we, while agreeing on common rules for local border traffic, should, as is provided for, allow the Member States to conclude bilateral agreements relating to their implementation.

The loss of the internal borders does, of course, make it all the more important that the external border of the Schengen zone be monitored. Exchange of information across borders, with joint coordination and controls, have made it possible to reduce criminal activity in some frontier regions.

While we must of course make matters simpler and easier for cross-border residents, the option of imposing strict sanctions must be in place to ensure that the concessions made are not abused. There must also be guarantees that these persons constitute no danger to public safety and order, and it is for these reasons that I endorse, in particular, the Committee’s proposal for thorough and recurrent checks to be carried out at irregular intervals.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to commend Mr Brejc on his outstanding report. This is a well-balanced proposal which will not only facilitate traditional population movements at border crossings, but will also guarantee appropriate security levels at the EU’s external borders.

Illegal immigration and potential threats to security posed by criminal activities must be thwarted. There is also a need to facilitate local border traffic, that is, to facilitate crossing for border residents with legitimate reasons to cross the border frequently.

Our efforts to increase security at our external borders, not least by means of the adoption of the second generation of the Schengen Information System (SIS), sends out a positive political message. Borders must not act as a barrier to commercial, social and cultural interaction or to regional cooperation. People living in border regions should be able to sustain traditional contact without having to face excessive administrative obstacles.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, I welcome the fact that simplification of local border traffic has taken the form of a regulation. This means that the provisions in question will not have to be transposed into national law. Instead, they will be applied directly by all Member States across the entire Union. This is a very important regulation for the Union as a whole, but especially for the countries responsible for security at its external borders. My country, Poland, has the longest external land border of the Union, which is why we welcome the simplification the regulation implies.

Clearly, the way people living in a country’s heartland and central areas perceive border issues differs from how they are perceived by people living in border regions. For the latter, the border is part of their daily lives. They have constant practical experience of it, and are obliged to live with the consequences of its existence. That is why I do not want there to be any difficulties or administrative hold-ups, because borders must not be an impediment to cultural and social exchange or to regional cooperation.

What do the contents of the regulation mean for us? This regulation ensures equality within the Union, and solidarity with its closest neighbours. It also generates a sense of unity and does away with artificial divisions. In addition, it will stimulate cooperation between regions. On a practical level, however, I am convinced it will bring an end to queues at consulates in countries that issued visas. Consequently, it will also mean an end to the corruption associated with granting documents of that nature.

To conclude, I should like to say that if this regulation is adopted, we shall be sending out a signal that the European Union is not an inaccessible stronghold, and that there is no such thing as Fortress Europe. The Union will be seen to be lifting internal borders whilst also opening up to the outside world. To end on a poetic note, our closest neighbours will be able to enter the Union, albeit for a short time, with their heads held high, instead of on their knees as has been the case to date.

  István Szent-Iványi (ALDE). – (HU) The new Member States would like to join the Schengen area as soon as possible. However, the positive expectations are mixed with a fair amount of anxiety and worry. New Member States fear that a new Iron Curtain may fall into place, this time not on the Western, but on the Eastern borders. They fear that joining the Schengen area may create difficulties in keeping in touch with relatives, that it may prevent the maintenance or development of relationships in the areas of economy, education and culture.

A great merit of the report and of the cooperation created between the Commission and Parliament is that they give a reassuring answer to the anxieties. This report and this text is now more favourable in every respect than the original proposal of the Commission. It addresses three important issues. Firstly, it establishes the border area at 30 kilometres, but it allows the possibility of extending it to 50 kilometres. Secondly, at least one year of residency is required, but it allows the possibility of extending this to several years by bilateral agreement; this addresses the worries of mass relocations to border areas, which may interfere with the ethnic balance of these regions. Thirdly: it extends the duration of stay in neighbouring countries from the originally proposed seven days to three months. These provisions make it possible to conduct freely all the activities related to cross-border cooperation. Therefore this is a very good proposal. However, it is worthless on its own, as it proposes the introduction of local border traffic permits. However, this requires the amendment of the Council Regulation concerning Schengen, and the introduction of such a local border traffic permit must be made possible.

Mr Frattini’s words are very positive; I hope that the Council will have the same constructive attitude as the Commission, and they will amend the Schengen Agreement and the Regulation as soon as possible, to enable this excellent text to finally come into force.

  Barbara Kudrycka (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, the simplification of procedures for local border traffic at external borders is a step in the right direction. A great deal will depend on how the Member States themselves implement the provisions of this regulation, however. Other factors to take into account will be the size of the target group of beneficiaries of these movements, and whether the reasons for which the new regime is introduced reflect those highlighted in the proposal for a regulation. I refer to social, family and cultural cohesion and to economic cooperation. Neighbouring countries will also be challenged to ensure full reciprocity of the effective implementation of readmission agreements.

During the introduction of the local border traffic regime, it will be incumbent on the Member States to act very responsibly so as to ensure that the new BIS system does not benefit cross-border crime, smuggling or the organisation of illegal immigration. Clearly, therefore, the document we are debating is simply paving the way for the regulation of local border traffic across our external borders. Its implementation in the field must be constantly monitored. It will be necessary to establish whether it is actually worthwhile in terms of real benefits for communities living in border areas, whilst also complying with security requirements. The outcome of this assessment may vary in the various Member States located on the Union’s external borders.

In conclusion, if we really want to engage in a serious discussion on integrated solutions to make our external borders more user-friendly to travellers who are third country nationals, whilst retaining essential security requirements, we ought to ensure that all the institutions and Member States are working together to ensure full implementation of the Schengen acquis by the 10 new Member States as soon as possible. The latter’s visa policy towards their neighbours should become much more transparent once they are able to issue short-term Schengen visas.

In addition, there should be joint discussion of the possibility of wider use of national multiple entry long-term visas in cases where the implementation of the proposed local border movement provisions is not viable or attractive to the border community. I have in mind cases in which the community is seeking access to the entire territory of the neighbouring country, not just to a small, clearly defined area.

  Kinga Gál (PPE-DE). – (HU) I welcome the draft regulation to be accepted today, and congratulate the rapporteur for contributing to the preparation of a better text that really serves the purpose for which it has been created.

This regulation is particularly important to us, Hungarians, as it ensures a further form of contact for Hungarians living in the border areas in neighbouring countries, and it makes their everyday life easier. The draft takes into account the particularities and differences of border regions, and it is capable of having a positive effect on border regions without violating any guarantees. We hope that it will not affect the current, traditional particularities of border regions. It is now the responsibility and opportunity of the governments to use the conditions provided by the Regulation when they conclude their bilateral agreements. We feel that this will ensure contact between those on the two sides of the border, and at the same time, it will filter out any abuse.

  Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, I would like again to thank the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and all the speakers. Thanks to the contribution of each institution, the balance between facilitation on the one hand and security on the other has been maintained and this regulation, as was rightly said, will also be very helpful in strengthening the local development of important European regions near to the external borders.

The introduction of a specific local border traffic permit for border residents will help in identifying those people who have the right to benefit from the facilitated border crossing regime. Member States will have the right to scrutinise carefully people requesting this permit. However, I think that is fully justified by the advantages deriving from such a permit.

First of all, holders of the permit will no longer need to be in possession of a visa, and a visa exemption for the holders of a local border traffic permit will be included very soon in the forthcoming Commission proposal revising the relevant visa regulation which I will put forward by the end of March. Later in the spring I will also present the new document on the common consular instruction for issuing a visa. On the basis of this regulation, Member States will be able to provide some practical facilitation such as specific border crossing points reserved for border residents and give them the possibility in very exceptional cases to cross the border outside authorised border crossing points.

To counterbalance that, Member States will have to ensure regular surveillance of border areas in order to avoid the misuse of the local border traffic regime and provide for specific sanctions.

Finally, the Commission will report on the implementation of the local border traffic regime two years after the entry into force of the regulation, proposing modifications if necessary.

I would like to conclude my remarks by stressing that I very much hope Parliament will confirm with its vote its support for the proposal made by the rapporteur, and I will encourage the Council to do the same as soon as possible.

(Applause)

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.