Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 16 February 2012 - Strasbourg

5. Family reunification of third-country nationals living in the EU (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Juan Fernando López Aguilar, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the EU (O-000015/2012 - B7-0031/2012).

***

As the Chair of the Committee and author of the oral question is not present, I would like to give the floor to the European Commission, namely, Commissioner Barnier.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the question put to the Commission by your House and by your rapporteur, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, and to give you the opinion of my colleague, Cecilia Malmström, on this subject, for which she is responsible.

Honourable Members, family reunification accounts for a large share of legal immigration in the European Union. Family reunification is decreasing, falling from 50% of legal migration in the 2000s to one third today. The migrants covered by the directive – that is to say, third-country nationals joining a non-EU citizen – account for 21% of all permits issued – 500 000 people for our 27 Member States in 2010.

I would like briefly to mention the content of the Green Paper and the issues it raises on the scope, the conditions required to exercise the right to reunification, most notably integration measures, and problems regarding procedure. There are also a number of issues relating to possible ways to prevent fraud and marriages of convenience, as well as the rules relating to fees.

In its 2008 report on the Family Reunification Directive, the Commission had already noted specific problems concerning implementation at national level, for example, cases in which visas were not issued in a simplified procedure to a person admitted as a family member. The Commission also identified shortcomings in the directive, where some of its provisions were too vague, for example, as regards the possibility of applying certain conditions, such as integration measures.

The Member States called on the Commission, both at the time the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum was adopted in 2008, and in the Stockholm Programme in 2009, to continue developing this policy at EU level by giving special consideration to integration. The tendency of a number of Member States to apply stricter rules because of – in their opinion – problems of integration and abuse, has reignited the debate.

Taking all these elements into account, the Commission considered it appropriate to organise an open consultation at EU level. The Green Paper represents the most participatory approach. It ensures that all interested parties have the opportunity to be involved and to express their point of view. It also leaves us the choice of whether or not to act subsequently and as to the form that such action should take.

Honourable Members, with regard to your questions on human and fundamental rights, I would like, on behalf of Ms Malmström, to make three points.

Firstly, the directive recognises the right to family reunification as a necessary way of making family life possible. Secondly, as confirmed by the European Court of Justice, the directive must be applied in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in conformity with this Charter. This is particularly so with regard to the right to respect for family life, the right to marry, the right to found a family, and the right of a child to maintain a personal relationship with both his or her parents.

The European Court of Justice confirmed in another judgment that the optional conditions laid down in the directive – for example, requiring the applicant for reunification to have sufficient financial resources – must be applied on a restricted basis so as not to interfere with the right to family reunification.

My third and final point is that the Green Paper invites interested parties to specify whether or not guarantees should be introduced so as to ensure that integration measures and fees are not used as a means to restrict the right to family reunification

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, regarding forced marriages and fraudulent marriages, the Green Paper invites interested parties to provide further information to the Commission so that any problems can be solved in a more targeted way. On the one hand, the Commission is making every effort in the Green Paper to determine whether or not there is a link between forced marriages and the minimum age of the spouse, as a number of Member States have argued. On the other hand, it is asking for statistics on marriages of convenience that are known to have taken place and information on how the provisions covering checks and inspections could be more effective.

Finally, I would like to stress the open nature of this consultation. Depending on the results of the consultation, the Commission will decide what needs to be done. Various options are available. Interpretative guidelines are an option and could be an effective instrument if accompanied by other tools, such as groups of experts and an in-depth dialogue with each Member State.

As a follow-up to the Green Paper, in the second quarter of 2012, the European Migration Network will complete a targeted study to feed into the consultation process and the subsequent action taken. Whatever form the follow-up action will take, the Commission will ensure the correct implementation of the current EU rules on family reunification. If necessary, it will be prepared to open infringement proceedings.

  Véronique Mathieu, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the 2003 Family Reunification Directive marks an important stage in EU migration policy. It recognises the right to family life of migrants who are legally established on the territory of the European Union. It supports their integration by limiting family separation and allowing them the stability and enrichment of family life.

Let us not forget, however, that family reunification continues to be an important source of legal migration. The European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted in 2008 under the French Presidency of the European Union, reflects the need to structure and frame this migration, taking into consideration the reception capacities of the individual Member States.

It is a policy that is both realistic and humane. The human rights of migrants residing legally on the territory of the European Union must be respected, and their integration must be promoted, while preventing any abuse and taking our own limits in terms of reception into consideration.

In France, 29 400 residence permits were granted in 2010 to third-county nationals for the purposes of family reunification. In Italy, the number of permits was 160 200, while in Finland, 40 times fewer permits were issued over the same period.

The conditions for granting permits for the purposes of family reunification differ considerably from one Member State to another. Despite the efforts made, the level of convergence between national family reunification policies is very low. The European Commission has already stressed on several occasions that this is partially due to shortcomings and deficiencies in the transposition of this 2003 directive. It is always a good idea to consult civil society and the actors concerned but, above all else, it is important to ensure that the existing law is complied with and implemented correctly. If this is not the case, I call on the European Commission not to hesitate to be more reactive than it has been up to now.

The European Commission has presented its Green Paper. Why is the current situation as it is, Commissioner, and what else do you propose?

  Sylvie Guillaume, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on family reunification on the day before the consultation launched by the European Commission comes to an end. However, I am disappointed that our institution was unable to make a greater contribution to these discussions, and to do so in a more structured way, as other organisations or associations have done or certainly will do.

This being so, I should like to emphasise three, in my view essential, points concerning the spirit in which these rules on family reunification should be adopted, and even modified. The first point is that it is necessary to update the approach taken to date by emphasising, first and foremost, that we need to ensure respect for the right to family life. This must guide our thinking on the implementation of the directive, especially since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, therefore, on the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with a view to accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The second point relates to the objective of the directive. Originally, this objective was to promote the integration of migrants. However, the directive has become, instead, an immigration management tool, the effect of which can legitimately be considered counterproductive in terms of social integration. Therefore, my question on this point is whether the original objective, that of integration, should not be more firmly re-established.

My third and final point is that, in my view, the Commission should show itself to be more offensive, and therefore – let me spell it out – initiate infringement proceedings against a number of Member States which do not apply these rules correctly.

The adoption of increasingly restrictive measures has been shown in several Member States to reduce the number of migrants settling in Europe for the purpose of family reunification. I therefore call on the Commission to be extremely vigilant in the handling of the results of the Green Paper.

  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, the family can provide people with security, safety and a sense of belonging in their lives. If, for various reasons, people are forced to leave both their country and their family, they will always carry within them the dream of being part of a family again, of being united and of belonging. That hope never dies.

The Commission has now examined the implementation of the directive on the right to family reunification from 2003 and found that many Member States have problems getting this to work in practice. I therefore welcome the Commission’s new, clearer guidelines for the Member States. Many of the provisions are vague and new guidelines can help to safeguard the provisions that exist and may be a good tool for the Member States, but I am opposed to the introduction of new provisions and I seriously question the Commission’s timing regarding the release of this Green Paper on the future of family reunification.

If we open up the possibility of adopting new provisions, I believe there is a risk that the result will be worse than what we currently have and that fewer people will be reunited with their families. I would like to hear how the Commission intends to deal with the implementation of this directive with which several Member States are struggling so badly. Have any infringement proceedings been initiated? If no infringement proceedings have been initiated, why not? What excuse is there for that?

Let us also remember that there is actually only one Member State, namely the Netherlands, that has requested an amendment to the directive, and it would need more than that for us to open the way for new provisions. International human rights instruments confer on us all the right to a family life, and this right to live together, to love and to belong is something that none of us should jeopardise. The directive must provide guarantees to protect the right to belong to and be part of a family with other people.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, as somebody else has already mentioned, this directive is designed to help people, to allow families to be together. Partners who want to be together, parents and children who want to be together, but who currently find themselves living in different countries, for whatever reason. However, it appears that Member States are using the directive to achieve the opposite result, to keep migrants out, to keep out what, in my native country, the Netherlands, are known as no-hoper migrants. That is blatant abuse of a directive intended to respect family life and also, therefore, to encourage us to observe human rights.

Countries are stretching age requirements: are you now allowed to get married at 18 or only when you have reached 21? Countries are imposing income requirements on migrants who want to reunite their families, income requirements which they are not imposing on home nationals. Countries are introducing more and more examination requirements: they are demanding that you must learn the language before you enter the country and are refusing to grant residence permits to those who do not speak the language. I see that happening in the Netherlands. I see that people are trying to get their partners across to the Netherlands, but if they happen to be illiterate, if they have never learned to read or write, then it will not be easy for them to pass the Dutch naturalisation test. What the Dutch Government is saying with this is: yeah right, you can have your right to family reunification, like that is ever going to happen.

I therefore ask the Commission for clarification. Can things be allowed to carry on like this or should the European Commission come up with tighter rules to combat such abusive practices? After all, this is about family reunification and not – as I have heard my French colleague saying – about the absorption capacity of the given country. That is not what this is about. This is about people’s right to be able to be together. Could we, therefore, tighten the rules here to stamp out the kinds of abuse of integration law that we have been talking about, or might that, in practice, be unwise? If we open Pandora’s box, are we not going to get into a lot of trouble? The Netherlands seems to be setting a trend. Even Belgium is now using naturalisation rules in order to refuse permits, and France seems to be considering it.

The question we, this Parliament and the European Commission, are facing, thus, is: should we keep the situation as it is and try to prevent abuse by making court rulings binding throughout Europe? Should we try to use the directive for its intended purpose, namely, family migration, or should we try to modify the directive so that abuse no longer takes place? I must admit, I would like to see improvements, I would like to see the rules tightened, but I think that our policy line should be the following: we keep the directive as it is and we encourage citizens to go to court and win their right there to bring their partner across to Europe.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, this debate is particularly important because it would appear that the vital, protected right of family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union is under threat. It is protected on paper at least, as many, including the European Commission, have judged its application to be problematic. That is why it is essential for us to look on the public debate started by the Commission as an opportunity to strengthen that right, and not – as some people are trying to do – to weaken it.

Immigration policy and the credibility of the European Union are already being so severely tested and questioned that the last thing we need is for anyone’s rights to be undermined. A good start would be if we were to refuse to accept baseless arguments. The reality is that family reunification covers a very small part of immigration and, secondly, when the Commission repeatedly asks the Member States for data on fraud, they never materialise; at least they have not done so to date.

Let us be brave enough to enact equal treatment, the treatment we would wish for ourselves, and to see things in their real perspective.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, with this debate on the directive on family reunification, the European Parliament is being overtaken by events for the umpteenth time. The problem is not that some Member States are not applying the directive or that they are not applying it correctly. The problem is that the whole thinking behind the directive is hopelessly outdated. Family reunification and family formation are among the largest sources of mass immigration to Europe. Very often, the people concerned do not speak the language of the host country and have no prospects of integration or finding work. The small amount of integration that may have been achieved is constantly being undone with the arrival of family members who have to start the whole process again from scratch. It becomes a bit like painting the Forth Bridge.

That is why there is a growing awareness that this cannot be allowed to continue and that the option of taking restrictive measures must be made possible. We must abandon the one-sidedness of a directive that allows Member States only to pursue a relatively lax policy and not to have a policy which is any stricter. We also urgently need to abandon the misguided idea that, just because the right to family life is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, this should automatically mean that family reunification can only take place in one of the European Member States and not in the country of origin. It is time that we stopped taking into account only the rights of immigrants, and that we paid attention to the rights of Member States and the rights of citizens and taxpayers in Member States.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), Blue-card question. – (SV) Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Claeys if he is capable of imagining, in an empathetic way, that it is him this relates to and that it is his family which, for various reasons – it could be war, poverty, famine or whatever – is forced to leave its homeland and is then unable to be reunited in a safe country.

I merely wonder whether he has ever considered the idea that it could apply to him and his relatives. Is it not the case that the right to love ones children or parents applies to everyone, irrespective of the country someone comes from?

  Philip Claeys (NI), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Mr President, my answer to Ms Wikström is that, emotional and sentimental considerations are all very well and good, but we need to be able to implement a policy. The facts are that a very large proportion of the immigration involving people who have absolutely no prospect of integration takes place in the context of family reunification, that that policy of family reunification is subject to widespread abuse and we, as policy makers, have to take that into account. This is not just about people who are forced to come here in very difficult circumstances and we also need to ask ourselves whether, in the majority of cases, such family reunification could be arranged in the country of origin, and that is effectively the case.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – (MT) Mr President, over the years, the Family Reunification Directive has done a great deal of good, since it has allowed several families situated in dangerous areas to be reunited under the protection offered by European law. At the same time, it has also permitted several immigrants to integrate within Europe by making it possible for them to live their family life. This is precisely why we should keep working on this directive, whilst ensuring that its purposes are still achievable in future. The Commission’s Green Paper on this directive, which we are discussing today, analyses this topic from different points of view. Yet I would like to take the opportunity to go further and also look at the issue from another point of view and mention those other countries which are, to this very day, facing disproportionate burdens owing to heavy immigration influx. Right now, for example, it is Greece that comes to mind. This country cannot even cope with the influx and the needs of the people arriving there, let alone were these people to be joined by their family members.

I also hail from a country, Malta, which has received a great influx of immigrants, and this already creates a disproportionate burden. Were the families of some of these persons also to be added, then the burden would be far greater. This does not mean that this directive, this law, is bad. Far from it. I have already stated that it is very good and very important. Yet it is important that in assessing this law, we view all perspectives, including the ability of Member States to implement it. If a directive is not viable, then it will be of no interest to anybody.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), Blue-card question. – (SL) Mr President, allow me to ask about one very important aspect in relation to family migration, resettlement and reunification.

What provisions are there for the treatment and, above all, the prevention of those infectious diseases which today still pose a major threat to many areas, including Europe?

  Simon Busuttil (PPE), Blue-card answer. – I think it would be more appropriate for the Commission to reply to this question. The point I was trying to make in my speech is that it is good to have standards, but we have to make sure that it is possible for all Member States to implement them. These standards must include health services, as my colleague has mentioned, so I hope that this, too, will be taken into account. That is the point I was making in my speech.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). – Mr President, as the debate so far has shown, family reunification, of which I am a product – I joined my family in the European Union as an immigrant – is something which is extremely important and fundamental, and I think EU law and regulations in this area understand that this is a fundamental right. It is a fundamental right to be joined by your family, but, of course, you cannot divorce it from the context of immigration to the European Union.

What we are doing today is perhaps not debating current EU migration policy but ensuring that we do not have the inconsistencies and unfairness that accompany the right for non-EU citizens who are already legally residing in a Member State to be joined by their families. This is a basic human right, and we should always remember this. Of course, the reality of the directive is that it is very imperfect. The discretion used by Member States has been so wide as to create some unfair practices. This Green Paper, therefore, is a chance to strengthen the guarantee of family reunification to non-EU citizens, but we must have what Mrs Guillaume talked about in terms of a proactive approach by the Commission to ensure that those inconsistencies, where they are deeply unfair, are ironed out.

Some Member States have called for more restrictive conditions to be added to this directive in order to tackle fraud and abuse. We really need to assess all of this and to ensure that what we are delivering here are basic human rights, but obviously in a realistic context of immigration to the European Union.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are discussing here is a directive intended to facilitate family reunification. It is not about immigration policy. As Claude Moraes just said, you obviously cannot separate the two issues altogether, but let us keep a close eye on what the directive concerns. It concerns immigrants who want to build a stable family life. That will do a great deal to promote integration. People who are forced to remain alone while their loved ones and their families are living somewhere else are not living in a stable situation. It is, therefore, in our interests to ensure that people are able to live in stable family circumstances.

Moreover, let us remember that there are still a great number of people who are not entitled to claim this right, for example, cohabiting partners with children and same-sex couples. On this matter, I therefore welcome hearing the extraordinarily progressive recommendation given by the competent committee of the Council of Europe to the European Commission.

Of course, abuse should be discouraged and forced marriages is something that I seriously abhor. However, I have to get one thing off my chest, ladies and gentlemen, and this is a purely personal comment: saying that we have to use this instrument now to fight that sort of thing seems to me to smack somewhat of convenience feminism. If we want to do something to strengthen the position of women, then, frankly, I could give you a few better suggestions.

We need to focus, especially, on improving the application of the directive, on ensuring, more than anything else, that the ambiguities can be ironed out, on greater harmonisation and on ensuring that application of the directive is more harmonised, instead of on increasing the differences in implementation between Member States. On that score, I am therefore pleased to note from the Commissioner’s words that there is no support for the restrictions demanded by the Dutch Government.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we know that this is a difficult debate. It was difficult the first time round. Indeed, at that time, some of us who were in the House felt that the directive that we are currently discussing was too flexible and we launched a case before the ECJ concerning a couple of the provisions of the directive. Unfortunately, from the point of view of some of us, the ECJ found in the wrong way, but nevertheless it upheld two of the issues, not least about children joining their families.

So while there are those who argue that this directive is unnecessarily lax, I think that we can see within the directive how we look differently at issues of flexibility. At present, four Member States covered by the directive are using it in a more and more restrictive manner, despite the rulings of the European Court of Justice. I think that is an issue that the Commission needs to look at. As someone said, the whole goal of this directive was in favour of family reunification as a measure of integration. Integration measures were meant to be part of the goal, not a barrier to family reunification. We know about people being asked to take language courses abroad when those courses do not exist and we know about highly restrictive costs in terms of coming to join family members. All of these measures are put in place to actually erect barriers. I believe, and my group believes, that those certainly need to be challenged.

We are also hearing a great deal about issues of marriage and whether marriages are genuine or not. This is, of course, incredibly difficult to determine, not least when you look at the divorce rates of some EU nationals. But, nevertheless, there are ways in which we can deal with this. Some Member States already have legislation in place on issues relating to forced marriage, rather than arranged marriage. The EU has programmes in third countries looking at the empowerment of young women and girls and indeed trying to change family attitudes on the issue. There are also measures that you can take at interview stage to try to establish whether it is a forced marriage or not. I am really interested that people are so concerned about this because a number of us in this House want to bring forward measures looking at the question of forced marriage. We look forward to support from some unusual sources in terms of women’s rights on this.

There is flexibility in the directive. We know that. As I say, we have seen ECJ rulings that have tried to put a limit on certain parts of the flexibility, but I think that, rather than looking to open up the directive, we need to ask the Commission what it has been doing in terms of infringement proceedings. In 2008, they said this directive was inadequately transposed and inadequately implemented in a number of Member States. What has happened since to improve that situation?

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, I recently asked the Dutch Minister for Immigration and Asylum, Mr Leers, whether he, in his crusade against family reunification, had no compassion for people who love each other. His answer was: ‘Happiness in life is not a criterion which I recognise’. How can you say such a thing? And as a Christian Democrat, too! Did Christian Democrats not once call the family the cornerstone of society? Does Christianity not teach that love is the highest good? And does it not say in human rights conventions that family life needs protection? Not according to this minister who, in acting in this way, has turned his back on his origins and party.

In the meantime, I have received a lot of e-mails from people who are desperate, who are unable to build a family life because of the current Dutch policy of naturalisation tests, inflated income requirements and excessively expensive residence permits. That applies to everyone, but to LGBT people in particular. Lawyers are now advising them to choose the Europe Route. That is to say that it would be in their best interests to move to another European country, because there is no other Member State that operates such a heartless policy as the Netherlands. How low can a government sink?

Fortunately, Commissioner Malmström has consistently shown that, for her, happiness in life does matter. Abuse must be prevented, but Europe is not going to make it impossible for lovers to set up home together in one of the Member States. However, I have a bit of a problem with the Green Paper. With this paper, is the Commission not sending out a signal that the family reunification policy is up for debate? Would that energy not be better spent in punishing a minister who is a disgrace to Christian Democracy and to the community of values that Europe claims to be?

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard much harsh criticism of the Dutch Government’s guidelines with regard to family reunification. These criticisms of a country, which, in the full exercise of its sovereignty, is adopting more restrictive rules on such a delicate issue, one so closely related to the fundamental issue of immigrant integration, call to mind an official government document, which will be presented today, of all days, in Rome. This is the eighth report on immigration published by the Italian National Council of Economy and Labour (CNEL) – an Italian constitutional body – showing that the Italian regions and provinces in which integration has been most fully and seriously implemented are those in the north, and particularly in the north-east: that is, precisely those regions – such as the Veneto – governed by the Northern League, a movement which many in this Chamber regard as xenophobic.

This leads me to believe that it is precisely the adoption of strict rules, of a substantial immigration filter, that can lead to true integration. Moreover, this is what emerges not from a biased opinion, but from an official government document, with constitutional status in my country. Let us therefore examine these proposed rules. Are they rules fit for the Third Reich or are they reasonable norms? When an immigrant, in order to obtain family reunification, is required to demonstrate that he has a job, a certain economic stability, etc.; when strict measures are called for with regard to the shameful scam of forced marriages or marriages of convenience, all we are asking for is European standards. In short, what we want are standards compatible with European judicial culture.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the influx of family migrants entering the Netherlands this year will once again reach figures of over 40 000. Family reunification is therefore one of the main catalysts of this ongoing mass immigration, with problems such as cultural alienation, an increase in our environmental footprint and excessive strains on the welfare state. I would emphasise that this is an issue concerning family migrants. We are not talking about refugees who are at risk in their own country.

The Netherlands is now asking for a widening of the European directive which will enable us to make our own decisions on migration. After all, each Member State is different. The Netherlands wants the scope to be able to pursue its own policy, as that has now become necessary, but Commissioner Malmström is of the opinion that the problems of one individual country are of no importance. Is she siding with the Europeans in this? No, Commissioner Malmström is siding with the immigrants. The Commission argues that entire families should be able to settle in the EU, but the right to a family life can be exercised just as well, if not better, in the country of origin. Commissioner Malmström is totally blind to the reasonable requirement that Member States should be able to make their own decisions in matters that concern their very survival.

I call on the Commission once again to put the interests of Member States and the interests of society first. Legislation ought to serve everyone’s interests, not just the interests of immigrants and those of the Commission in its ivory tower.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), Blue-card question. – (NL) Mr President, Mr Zijlstra, I heard you saying that it should, nevertheless, be the case that the Dutch Government is allowed to decide for itself whether or not to allow family migrants in. That is actually the case already. My question to you is: are you aware that, in the majority of cases, family migration to the Netherlands concerns people who are coming to join a Dutch passport-holder? Whether that be someone who was born and bred in the Netherlands or someone subsequently granted a Dutch passport is another question altogether, but they are, therefore, Dutch citizens and holders of a Dutch passport who want to bring a migrant, their partner or their child, over to the Netherlands. The Netherlands should be able to regulate that on its own, but it is failing to do so. Why is that, Mr Zijlstra?

  Auke Zijlstra (NI), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Mr President, Ms Sargentini wonders why the Netherlands is failing to apply the rules that are allegedly already in place. My answer is: the kind of rules we are talking about do not exist. The requirements which the Netherlands wishes to make partner migration conditional upon include, for example, a minimum income and, in certain cases, we may demand that partners apply for an independent residence right. It is the opinion of the Dutch Parliament that the measures in the European directive regulating these matters are still too limited. Therefore, what the Netherlands is asking is not that the directive be applied more stringently throughout Europe, but that the Netherlands be allowed to apply stricter rules of its own.

  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the nature of the debate in this House shows that we represent the entire spectrum of opinion: on the one side, we have those who do not want restrictions of any kind, while on the other are those who associate any form of immigration with the risk of a massive influx of people. These are the two extremes to be found within the House.

Family reunification must be viewed with a great deal of common sense and rationalism. On the one hand, problems genuinely exist in Member States with excessively restrictive policies. After all, we cannot put so many obstacles in the way of reuniting families that, in the end, reunification becomes an impossibility. On the other hand, Member States are fully justified in demanding language skills and integration, for example, or at least a willingness to integrate within a state.

Secondly, the Member States naturally have the right to point out the problems that arise with family reunification, problems that should not be swept under the carpet. If countries like Greece, Malta, Romania or Italy are no longer permitted to indicate the problems they experience in this context, then I am not certain that we are taking a democratic approach by simply ignoring problems.

We do not need another new directive. We should debate the problems carefully and then consider how we can remedy them. The continuous production of new directives will not lead to an improvement in the directives or their implementation. We are currently experiencing implementation problems in some areas. I completely understand that we need to engage in debate first, rather than drawing up yet another new directive and adding something to it before we have thoroughly discussed the old directive and the associated problems.

I am in favour of listening to the Member States and of respecting the basic right of family reunification. If this is done in a reasoned and understanding way, then we will also achieve some progress.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I would like to talk about those issues that are, in my opinion, questionable. I include in this area the actual definition of a so-called intelligent perspective on acquiring right of residence.

This vague definition from the Green Paper may be unsafe, particularly if, in leaving Member States too much room for interpretation, it results in no third-country citizen being able to sponsor a family member. In some Member States, a potential sponsor must live within the territory of the state for at least two years before requesting the admission of a family member. Requirements such as this are made mainly in order to try and monitor the behaviour and financial situation of the applicant as a potential sponsor. This gives rise to a politically constructed temporal and spatial exclusion of families. Many non-governmental organisations have drawn attention to the fact that this is a breach of the right to private family life, as set out in Article 8 of the Convention. It may also be a breach of the right to married life and the principle of non-discrimination.

For this reason, I am in favour of shortening the procedure and the waiting time. The report on implementation of the directive and the Green Paper also list problems and shortcomings with implementation of the directive at national level. They both express concern over transposition of the directive. They conclude that Member States were given too much leeway in the application of some of the provisions.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, when we hear talk of migration, many of us think of asylum-seekers and overloaded boats, a few of us think of controlled immigration, and almost no one thinks of family reunification. More than one third of immigrants enter the European Union under the aegis of family reunification and, in some States, this group makes up more than half of all immigrants.

As Christian Democrats, we support the right to a family and the concept of family reunification. However, I would like to see the Commission take account of certain conditions and to incorporate them into its directive, for example, a provision stating that family reunification can only relate to the core family, that subsidiary persons with a right to protection will continue to be excluded – after all, the aim is for this group to return as soon as possible to their country of origin – that social security payments should be linked to acceptance of assistance with integration and that all forms of abuse should be effectively combated by every possible means. If these conditions are met, then family reunification will doubtless have a very positive effect.

In addition, however, I would like to draw attention to the fact that we should be paying more attention to attracting professionals, specialists and highly-qualified people, as all the statistics indicate that we need these people to strengthen Europe’s economy and, in the final analysis, to enable us to sustain our social security, pension and health systems. As you will know, we are in close competition with the US, as well as Canada and Australia, for the best personnel. For this reason, it is important for us to create attractive and timely opportunities.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, the report on the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive and the Green Paper have both noted problems and shortcomings in implementation at national level. However, what some countries, including the Netherlands, have done is to try to turn the problem on its head. They are claiming that the directive leaves scope for abuse. Does the Commission have any evidence or have Member States provided any evidence which gives any credence to these concerns?

The EU needs a common immigration policy. Yes, but this is about the most fundamental of rights, that is what it is about, as well as about the right to a personal life and a family life and the right to marry and start a family. That also applies to refugees and the Green Paper is now considering whether they, too, should be included.

Is the Commission aware of the practice in the Netherlands of using the criterion of the actual family situation when it comes to the reunification of the families of refugees who have acquired legal status? Is the Commission aware that, when establishing the existence of such actual family ties, a biological relationship, for example, is not considered evidence enough on its own, but interviews are also conducted with applicants, including very young children, and, if what are deemed to be ‘incorrect’ answers are given, mothers are told that there is no valid relationship between them and their own child? What is the Commission going to do about this?

The Netherlands is undoing fundamental rights and wants to reconsider the commitments it has made. Are we going to allow Member States to get away with reconsidering international conventions on fundamental rights? I do not want to hear an affirmative answer to that question. I want to hear from the Commission that it will guarantee that we in Europe will respect rights and keep them high on the agenda and not accept these callous proposals.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that family reunification is an issue of substance, one that is serious and concrete. The welfare of the family must take precedence over anything else, even if it is, of course, undeniable that this right must be subject to rules.

In my opinion, the 2003 directive contains useful rules, though they must be applied uniformly and homogeneously within the territory of all Member States. For this reason, the Commission has quite rightly initiated a serious debate by publishing a Green Paper, in which it sets out a clear vision: to introduce concrete measures in support of a process of family reunification which, in my opinion, simply has to be taken into account.

I am the rapporteur of a document on information and communications technology, on the transfer of workers who are third-country nationals to establishments located both in third countries and in Europe. In this particular case, a more favourable exception clause was carried in committee to ensure family reunification at a practical level, which is definitely a political priority for the European People’s Party.

Of course, language is important, and we must ensure that the European agenda on migratory flows – again in this case we are speaking of legal immigration – takes account of this directive, which is absolutely correct and practical. The Commission’s goal must be to urge Member States to adopt rules that can and will be applied in practice and, at the same time, ensure that the right to be together is truly recognised, one to which no one can object.

The PPE’s aim is to ensure that the 500 000 individuals who are potential beneficiaries of this rule are given due consideration by Member States.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, of course we are duty bound to respect the right to family unification and of course the directive we are debating today is a decisive act which is supported by the Green Paper in the Commission’s recent communication.

There can be no doubt, and I wish to stress this point, that we all need to give this issue due attention. However, do you know what my fellow Greek citizens will ask me following this debate? They will ask me – as they constantly ask me – what, in the midst of all this discussion, is Europe doing, what are all of you doing, about the gangs that force even the facilitators, that force third-country nationals to get married, what are you doing so that we can develop infrastructures in the countries with the biggest problems?

One hundred and fifty thousand illegal immigrants a year enter Greece. In the centre of Athens, there are areas that have become ghettos. What are you doing for all of us Greek citizens who are unable to leave our homes after nine at night? I should like to close by saying that this is a very important issue, but we cannot isolate it from the overall framework of immigration policies.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, whatever the ostensible topic of debate in this House, the real objectives are first of all a steady incremental transfer of power from Member States to the centre, and, secondly, a dilution, not only of our national identities, but also of a more general European identity. The title ‘Europhile’ is most misleading.

The rights to family life, to marry and to found a family, taken from the European Convention, were not drafted to facilitate the colonisation of Europe by the Third World. The real objective of this directive is not to safeguard human rights; if it was, the EU would care about the peoples of Europe who lose the chance of a house, or a job or see the areas in which they live transformed beyond recognition.

These changes do not, of course, affect MEPs; they are doing rather well. A telling phrase in the wording of the question is: that Member States have been left with too much discretion. This directive and this question are about more power to the centre, so that we can have more immigration beyond the headline figure which is fed to the electorate. Is it desirable to reunify families? Yes, by reversing the process by which they became divided.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I have a specific question for the Commission. It might still be too early for this, but, in the light of the responses to this Green Paper that are likely to flow in, and in the light of the tone of this debate, does the Commission consider it likely that it will soon put forward proposals for amending the directive, or is the Commission’s current line of thinking that we had better leave things as they are? Is it possible to give an indication of that at all?

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, immigration is often viewed as a threat. However, the benefit to the economies of the various Member States in terms of labour that is not only necessary, but also highly qualified in many cases, meets the development needs of a European Union faced with the trend of an ageing and decreasing population. In times of profound economic and financial crisis, like the one we are experiencing, austerity policies deprive the workers and the people of rights, which also makes the situation of immigrants more precarious and causes an increase in illegal immigration and work. We therefore advocate acknowledgement of equal rights for national and foreign workers with regard to access to jobs, to working conditions, to guarantees of economic, social and cultural rights, and to increasing the political rights of immigrants. However, we also advocate the right to family reunification, which must mean that family members have the right, not just to go to Member States, but to be integrated with their social, economic and cultural life.

We consider it crucial that all 27 Member States sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, quite apart from all humanitarian issues and the question of the extent to which the reunification of families is a fundamental right, it must be clear to all of us that such family reunification constitutes a direct entry into the social systems, rather than into the labour market. If we consider that the number of immigrants in most EU Member States has increased several fold in recent decades, while the number of people in regular employment has remained more or less the same, then we can clearly see what this means. The fact is that in many countries, up to 40% of immigrants live mostly on social security payments, which is also the consequence of the application of this family reunification provision.

In this context, organised forced marriages and marriages of convenience are nothing new and are rarely uncovered. In order to restrict mass migration, it is certainly high time to tighten up our definition of the term ‘family’, instead of dealing with it with excessive generosity. We need to take a consistent, but well-founded humanitarian position on this issue.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, author. – (ES) Mr President, unfortunately, I was unable to be present from the very start of this debate on the oral question I put forward due to a problem of communication and coordination of parliamentary activities. However, I have been present for most of the debate and I have found that my question is indeed relevant.

The directive on family reunification gave the Commission a mandate in 2003 to periodically report to the European Parliament on the state of implementation of the directive and any related problems. This mandate included the production of a Green Paper, which has been submitted for discussion.

However, the frame of reference for implementing the Family Reunification Directive has changed drastically since 2003, precisely as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon, which reaffirms the area of freedom, security and justice, thereby transferring the free movement of people within a certain group of states that have removed their internal borders to the Community pillar – in other words, to EU law. Then again, the Treaty of Lisbon also includes a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 7 and 9 of which lay down the right to marry and found a family and the right to private and family life.

In this context, a debate has arisen in a fair number of Member States concerning cases of alleged abuse in the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive. It is worth noting that this debate has been particularly heated in some countries where the immigration rate is much lower – and therefore the problem is less dramatic – than in other countries where this matter does not arouse such passion.

The time has therefore come to analyse the real problems surrounding the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive, and to do so rationally, thoroughly, on the basis of reliable documentation, and avoiding all prejudice and smokescreens. Are there really any objective, hard facts that justify a debate on changing the terms of this directive? Are there really cases of abuse that justify changing the directive to make it more restrictive? Is it really a problem to establish, uniformly across all the countries in the Union, a maximum period for granting a uniform residence permit to the spouses, unmarried partners or underage children of people who already hold an EU residence permit and therefore have the right to free movement? What are the real problems this directive has given rise to?

Leaving all the prejudice and confusion to one side, that is the key issue that prompted me to submit this oral question, and the one that needs to be discussed. I hope the work carried out by the Commission will help to shed some light on this debate.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ÁNGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, Mr López Aguilar has just said that it is a valid question and, honourable Members, the number, the quality and the liveliness of your speeches, which express very different points of view, show that it is indeed a pertinent and relevant question.

I should like to thank you, Mr López Aguilar, on behalf of my colleague, Cecilia Malmström, for having asked it, as it gives the Commission the opportunity to review the state of this consultation.

I would like to point out, echoing the comments made by Véronique Mathieu, Ms Sargentini, Ms Lambert and Ms Flašíková Beňová, that each of them, and others too, have highlighted the differences between the Member States in the application of current legislation. Honourable Members, it is precisely to fully understand, properly analyse and address the problem of this divergent application – which is different from one Member State to another – that the Commission has launched this consultation, which will be completed on 1 March, and in which all those who have something to say must participate.

To fully understand, to make, as Mr Iacolino said, an attempt at clarity, is to accurately assess the imperfections of the current directive – I am thinking of what was said by Mr Moraes just now, recalling his personal testimony, because he himself is, he said, a product of family reunification.

I would also like to say, echoing the comments of Ms Guillaume, Mr Triantaphyllides, Mr Pirker and Ms Zuber, to whom I have listened, that, for the Commission, it is clear that family reunification is a tool for integration. For it to be implemented, consideration must naturally be given to the capacity of the individual States. That is what Mr Busuttil said, with great wisdom. Mr Busuttil also recalled the special case at this particular time, which is the exceptionally difficult situation in which Greece finds itself, and I wish to confirm that, as regards the capacity of Greece, Mr Busuttil, the Commission will continue to support a number of projects to improve the reception capacity of that country.

Ms Wikström, I would like to echo what you said by saying that it is indeed in response to the calls made under the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum and in the Stockholm Programme, and also in response to the very long list of problems identified in your 2008 report, that the Commission launched this consultation. We hope and, on behalf of Ms Malmström, I call for this issue to be studied and examined, completely, objectively and with reason – that is the word used by Ms Hohlmeier, who just now appealed to reason, with eyes open, without prejudice – I am using your words, Mr López Aguilar. We hope that this consultation will ensure the reasoned and objective examination of all the elements.

I am also going to say to a number of you, who brought up the case of a particular Member State – Ms Sargentini, Ms in ’t Veld, Mr de Jong, Mr Zijlstra and Ms Bozkurt – that the pre-entry measures, which can be taken in any country, are not in themselves in breach of the directive. On the other hand, they are only acceptable to the Commission if they serve to facilitate integration and if they comply with the principle of proportionality. In this spirit, Ms Guillaume and Ms Wikström asked if the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings. At this stage, the Commission has not initiated infringement proceedings. The directive gives Member States wide discretion – I have just pointed out that they could use it, but only in certain proportions – and it has not identified violations of specific provisions of the directive.

However, the directive is not very specific. That is why we have launched this public consultation. The Commission continuously monitors the implementation of this directive by the Member States and, as I have already said, it is prepared, if necessary, to have recourse to infringement proceedings.

Mr Claeys, if you see abuses – you spoke of this situation yourself – this consultation allows Member States to give us the facts and the statistics to enable us to fully understand the problems or the abuses and to know whether, at the end of this consultation, we need to propose a change.

I would like to finish by pointing out to Ms Mathieu and to Mr Mulder that the Commission has launched an open procedure, without prejudice, without ideology and, depending on the results of this consultation, we will decide what action to take. There are several options, which I mentioned in my first speech and will therefore remind you of. The most important of these are interpretative guidelines, which could be an effective instrument if accompanied by other tools, such as groups of experts and an in-depth dialogue with each Member State. If necessary, other provisions or other measures could be taken, but let us take the time to properly assess the results of this consultation, which will end on 1 March, and the Commission will act, encouraged by your own debate and your own recommendations.

Once again, whatever follow-up action the Commission takes, we are going to ensure that the current EU rules on family reunification are implemented correctly and that – and I repeat this for a second time – infringement proceedings are not excluded, should this course of action become necessary.

In any case, I thank you very much and I thank your rapporteur, Mr López Aguilar, for raising this issue, and I note – and I will tell Ms Malmström – that the liveliness and number of the speeches demonstrate that that is a very topical issue.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) A person’s right to live with family members, as well as the right and duty to care for children, to teach and educate them, and to live with them, are fundamental rights and duties that are unrelated to citizenship. Those rights should therefore also be respected and guaranteed for the citizens of third countries who have come to live in the European Union. I would also like to mention that there are many national and international declarations that take the same stance on this issue and recognise the rights and duties mentioned. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union lists the right to a family and family reunification as a fundamental human right. I appreciate that the European Commission has begun discussions on a revision of the rules on family reunification, applicable to migrants living in the European Union, but the Commission should consider very responsibly whether the directive provides for sufficient protection measures as regards family reunification, and we must ensure that it ends discrimination against the families of third-country citizens, because negative attitudes and intolerance towards migrants who come to Europe still exist. The Commission should also assess all the positive consequences of family reunification. Above all, the directive states that family reunification helps to ensure social and cultural stability, which creates a favourable environment for integration and facilitates the promotion of economic and social cohesion, beneficial for the local authorities of the host countries. It is also important to understand that the right to family reunification is a crucial step forward, making a tangible contribution to reducing illegal immigration and dangerous forms of social exclusion.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The reactionary political sectors often view immigration as a threat. For our part, as well as advocating the integration of and solidarity towards immigrants as a humanist principle, we also realise that the benefit to the economies of the various Member States in terms of labour that is not only necessary, but also highly qualified in many cases, meets the development needs of a European Union faced with the trend of an ageing and decreasing population.

During this time of the profound crisis of capitalism, so-called ‘austerity’ policies are depriving the workers and the people of rights, which also makes the social and labour situation of immigrants more precarious and causes an increase in illegal immigration and work. However, we also advocate the right to family reunification, which must mean that family members have the right to be integrated with the social, economic and cultural life of the Member States. We consider it crucial that all 27 Member States sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, since, if effectively implemented, it would provide an important international framework for protecting migrant workers’ rights.