Committee on Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DEVE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 5
We've had different political perspectives based on the sensitivity of this issue. However, overall, I think we have come up with a good consensus, something that will strengthen our partnership and, at the same time, protect sensitive areas. So, we need to continue what we started on January 12 in the forthcoming negotiations. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you, Niels. And yes, indeed, it was a very good collaboration, I can say on my own behalf. So, before we proceed to the vote, we checked if the voting machines are working properly. So, we'll do a test vote.
If you are planning to visit Ireland this summer, vote Green. If not, vote no. The vote is now open. Good man, Matt Lucas. I can always rely on you.
Speaker 4
Okay. I'm not very happy with that. Okay. Well, I'm alright. So, checking, okay.
So, yeah. It's got its confidential information. Classified information. Right. Let's get started.
So we go to the vote, and we will start with amendment 31. By a show of hands, those in favor? Those against? Approved. Next is compromise amendment 2.
By a show of hands, those in favor? Those against? Approved. Next is Amendment 52. Those in favor?
Those against? I forgot to say abstentions. It is rejected. Amendment 53, those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions ? Let's check. Voting is open. And voting is closed. And it has been rejected.
Next is Amendment 57. Those in favor, those against, abstentions, and I think it is rejected. And next is Amendment 58. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions carried. Next is compromise amendment 3. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions carried.
Next is compromise amendment 4. I'm sorry. I just turned my page here. And those in favor? It was against it.
Abstentions, and it is also carried. Compromise Amendment Five. Those in favor? It was against it. Abstentions, it is carried.
Next is Amendment 83. Those in favor? Those are against. Abstentions ? Let's check this one.
Voting is open. And the voting is closed. Abstentions: none, and it is carried. Compromise amendment seven, there's a favor. There's an argument against. Abstentions, and it's carried.
Compromise amendment eight, there's a favor. There's an argument against. Abstentions carried. Compromise Amendment 10. Those in favor?
That's against it. Abstentions carried. Compromise Amendment 11. Those in favor? Against.
Abstentions carried. Compromise Amendment 12. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions carried.
We now go to Amendment 118. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions ? Carried.
Amendment 119. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions, it's carried. Amendment 120: those in favor, those against.
Abstentions, and we check. Amendment 120, please. Voting is closed, and it is carried. Amendment 121, those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions, I think it is carried. Amendment 122, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions carried amendment A123. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions carried. Amendment 124. Those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions carried. À 125. Those in favor? Against. Abstentions carried.
Next are two identical amendments, 13 and 126. Those in favor are against. Amendment carried, abstentions noted. Amendment 14, those in favor? Those against?
Abstentions carried. Amendment 15, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions carried. Next is Amendment 17.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions carried. Compromise Amendment One. Those in favor?
Against. Abstentions carried. And now, we go to Amendment 25. Those in favor? Those are against.
Abstentions, please check. 25. Voting is open. The voting is closed, and it is carried. And amendment 26: those in favor, those against.
Abstentions carried. Amendment 27: those in favor, those against. Abstentions carried. And now we go to the final vote by roll call. Voting is open.
And the voting is closed. And it is carried out. 16 in favor, 0 against, and 3 abstentions. Congratulations, Mr. Duyking. So, we go to item six, conclusion on behalf of the Union of the Protocol and Implementation of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe and the European Community.
Miss Kozievska is not here, I don't think. So, let's proceed directly to the vote. It is a single roll call vote. So, the voting is open, and the voting is closed. And it is carried with 18 in favor, zero against, and one abstention. And that is the end of the electronic vote.
So, we have just enough time to move to item seven. Will that be perfect? Take a small break, or do we keep going? Well, we should keep going. So we will continue our meeting with the presentation of the legislative draft opinion on the proposal for the regulation establishing the Union support for asylum, migration, and integration for the period 2020-34, which our committee will submit to the Libe Committee.
The legislative proposal lays down the objectives and financing of the Union support for the implementation, strengthening, and development of the common asylum policy and common immigration policy for the period 2023-34. The purpose of the proposed regulation is to support the implementation of the EU's pact on migration and asylum, among other things, by contributing to a comprehensive approach to the management of migration and addressing the sharing of responsibility between member states, EU institutions, and agencies. So, without further ado, I will now give the floor to the dev repertoire, Mr. Andre Kolar of EPP, to present his draft opinion. Mister Kolar, you have the floor for 4 minutes. You're very welcome.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. As the chair indicated, I would like to present an opinion on this report. Of course, the committee that is mainly responsible is the Libre committee. Now, migration from the development point of view is, as we all understand, a bit of a challenge because we are not the ones who are setting up the agenda of migration. Migration is not a national problem for individual states.
It is a common European challenge that requires a shared response formulated by solid rules. I think that our main response is to view it through the eyes of possible cooperation with third countries and how to approach the problem in order to mitigate the migration flows and help the third countries to overcome the problems that arise and force people to migrate to the European Union. If we resign ourselves to solving these problems, then we will all pay the price. And I think that we can already see in certain European countries that the price can be very high. Rogue states do not shy away from using migration as a weapon to destabilize the European Union.
These regimes deliberately exploit people in difficult life situations and have no qualms about directing them against us like a loaded weapon. Our response must, therefore, be clear. We must protect legal pathways but strictly limit illegal ones. That is the main idea of the report I am presenting. And it also calls for cooperation with third countries, as I mentioned.
We must continue providing aid, but we cannot do so without clear conditions tied to our interests, better border control, and combating smugglers. I think that smuggling people is a huge problem that we are facing. Development cooperation must be transparent and involve reciprocal commitments. In cooperation with other organizations, we must block dangerous routes, dismantle smuggler networks, and provide protection for refugees closer to their countries of origin. Migration must be a matter of solidarity and shared responsibility.
It does not only affect border states or popular destinations. It impacts all of us, all of the European Union, all of us who share freedom of movement in the EU. We can see that there are no border controls in certain countries, and the Schengen system is being challenged. In the presented report, we have supported 20 amendments and, of course, taken the Council's position into account. And I would very much like to ask all of my shadow reporters, all of my colleagues, and all of you for support.
I think that the citizens of the EU expect the European Union to face this problem head-on and effectively stop illegal migration, or actually to effectively tackle it, protect what is necessary, and utilize the talents and abilities that will help us develop. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much, Andre, for that outline. We will now move to invite the Liebe rapporteur, Miss Anna Catarina Mendez of S&D, to present her priorities. Anna, you have the floor for 3 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. President. I will speak in Portuguese, if you don't mind. First.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for inviting me to come along and share with you the main topics of this report. First of all, I'd like to say that we need to distinguish the instrumentalization of immigration because that destroys our democracies. And secondly, we need to know how to protect refugees. And thirdly, how to protect and integrate immigrants who are looking for work within Europe. This is something that needs to be done legally, safely, and securely.
And I think we all agree that we need to avoid criminal activity, and I think we all agree on those bases. Let me say why. This is not a report that says we are going to decide how to protect our borders more or less. No. It's about talking about the MFF and the regulation, I mean, to really protect those who want to have support for their refugee status and need that support.
Speaker 9
So, the proposal that we have for the regulation on asylum, migration, and integration, the first criticism is that it's no longer a standalone or an autonomous program. Or you've got these national programs where all sorts of things are being placed. And also, we need to look at this constraint and say, well, okay, I think from my point of view, this needs to be an autonomous regulation. That's my opinion, anyway. It needs to continue to be autonomous.
I think the commission needs to have a much better, joined-up approach to the regulation. The objectives of this regulation and the proposal from the commission need to be more concrete and detailed. That's something we really need. And thirdly, once again, this is a call I'm making to you, as the European Parliament: we need to be able to correct an omission that's here. That is to say, this is no longer going to be an autonomous regulation.
It's going to be part of this great big mass of approaches that nobody quite knows exactly what they are. So, we must tread very carefully because we are not going to stop immigration. We need to regulate it because look at the developing countries and the issues that they have. Why is this happening? Now, in the context of the overall negotiations of the MFF, there are €2,000,000,000 that need to continue to be considered as something which is basically at the same level as it was before.
There's a slight increase, but we certainly can't have a cut in that. With less money, we will not be able to have the same level of control or the same level of integration of these people. So, we need more funds. I really think we need more money for this, something that we must demand. And we need to be able to guarantee a well-balanced and fair distribution of the different chapters of this regulation to achieve our objectives.
And finally, I think we need to give greater clarification to the areas that are covered by the regulation. Let me just say once again to my colleague, this is not about regulating borders. Those are other financial instruments that will do that. No. This is about guaranteeing that regional and local authorities can consolidate the way the current fund is being used so they can better serve the needs of these people. I know I'm out of time.
I'm sorry. So, I just want to say responsibility, yes. But responsibility means that this fund, today as it stands, requires greater coordination between all the players. And it's enormous for this parliament because it's about guaranteeing funding. And finally, we need to be a lot clearer about the objectives of this regulation and the actions that need to be funded and financed so that we can help these people with a view to solidarity.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
Miss Mendes, for that, outline the purpose of the regulation. So, let's go back then to the shadow rapporteurs. Miss Laurent is not here for S and D. Mister Desa is here, replacing Mister Halbani. So, you have two minutes, please.
Speaker 11
Chair, colleagues, this is a decisive moment for the future of the EU. The framework for community support for asylum and migration for the next period. This is a budgetary question, with almost €12,000,000,000 at stake. It's also a political question. It will have an influence on the confidence of citizens in our ability to manage migration flows and sustainability.
We have member states that receive fines for each assignee they cannot receive, and that raises significant concerns about the different capacities between different countries. It's not just about who pays; it's about the principles and who decides how decisions are made. Illegal migration is linked to how well states can secure order and security. When a country loses control over its borders, it also loses control of its own destiny. It's important to remember that Portugal was the member state where the largest number of immigrants entered between 2022 and 2023, with growth above the EU average.
This tells you something about the complexity of these matters and what we solve with more social cohesion. It shows us that a serious debate on migration can't be reduced to a budget of fines. We need to understand how to integrate and what the social and economic impacts are. People like Conrad Adenauer stressed that our union is based on voluntary cooperation, and the union strengthens when we have mutual respect for one another and when we share responsibilities, not when a central authority imposes fines that deepen division. We can find tangible solutions.
We can make our asylum and migration systems more effective, as shown by recent action of the EP. We can revise the concept of a safe third country. These measures can make our structures more flexible. Without trust, there is no cohesion. Without cohesion, we will not have sustainable European projects.
Defending our borders doesn't mean closing Europe, but ensuring that everyone enters legally with clear respect for the rules and the capacity of our societies. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Perfect timing. Now, as we have, I can see none of the other rapporteurs, none of the shadows here in the room. I'll open up and catch the eye if anybody wishes to take the floor. Udo has indicated, then Charl, and then Anna Miranda. So please, Udo, one minute.
Speaker 12
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. With flexibility. This is a process full of contradictions. On the one hand, we are celebrating, or perhaps others are celebrating less people coming to our shores, but the death toll is higher than in the last ten years if you look at who was killed in the Mediterranean.
Speaker 13
It's full of contradictions. We have to stop those who make profits from them, who are killed in the Mediterranean. We have to stop them urgently. On the other hand, our societies need people, and those people who flee know why they are doing so. So, this is a process full of contradictions, and we are ready.
Speaker 12
Our Miss Laurent is not able to be here today. We are constructively contributing to this debate. Thanks to the rapporteur of our committee. Thanks to the main rapporteur. But conditionality is not our issue because we are losing credit in our partner countries if we go along these lines.
Let's be constructive. We try to do our best.
Thank you.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much, Chairman. My colleague, Abir Al Salani, has asked me to read her text, so I'm going to switch to English since that is the language of the text.
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Kula, for the presentation of your draft report. The Union support for asylum, migration, and integration is, without doubt, a financial instrument that mainly covers EU internal policy, but we also understand its external aspects and its development aspects, especially when it comes to the EU's partnership with third countries on migration cooperation. We disagree with Stora Porter's approach to combat irregular migration at the detriment of development aid, and it should never be made conditional on the basis of third countries' cooperation on migration. Where we, as the living committee, have our strengths in tackling irregular migration is by proposing long-lasting solutions based on the SDGs, based on the needs of countries of origin and transit, and by placing the needs of the individual at the center of a human approach to asylum and migration policy. That is what our amendments will focus on.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much. I will also speak Portuguese. It seems to be the dominant language in this committee, so I'm going to use our common, shared language. Thank you to the rapporteur for the report, and thank you for the various interventions from the colleagues. I'm afraid my colleague, who is a great immigration and asylum specialist, is not able to be here and sends apologies.
I'd also like to say that the asylum and migration policy must be a pillar of Europe. It must be one of the efforts towards solidarity in which our countries need immigration. I come from Galicia. And like Portugal, we are countries where many people have left and migrated to other countries, to Latin America and around Europe. We know how our forebears had to emigrate.
We know what it feels like. But this partnership with third parties cannot be a way of just farming out the task of receiving and helping migrants. It must be based on human rights and respect for international law. The Mediterranean is full of dead bodies that have sunk to the bottom of our sea, of our oceans, the Atlantic too. So many people have died at sea.
And therefore, I think that we really need to avoid instrumentalizing this subject, which is so important for our countries. We're all facing demographic decline. We need these people. So let's base our approach on respect for other people, respect for ourselves, and on our needs. Thank you.
Speaker 4
And my Portuguese, I'm afraid, is inadequate for today's proceedings. So, are there any other members in Portuguese or otherwise? No? Right. So we'll go to the representative of the European Commission, Mr. Guido Castellano, who is the program manager for funds coordination units in DG Migration and Home Affairs.
Mister Castellano, you have the floor for 3 minutes, please.
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the floor. Hello, everybody. So, a short intervention to underline once again that asylum, migration, and regulation are governed under the treaty by the articles concerning the EU's internal objectives. So it's clearly an internal instrument.
And it is possible for asylum, migration, and integration to also support actions in relation to or in third countries, provided that those actions serve, in a way, the internal objectives of the support. This approach followed in the current MFF period is also repeated and confirmed under the asylum, migration, and integration proposal of the Commission. This proposal recognizes that the EU and the member states should have a certain margin to support specific activities in third countries related to key migration areas. This is in the optic of complementing, on the side of asylum, migration, and integration support, what is done under the external dimension of migration by Global Europe. And this is also the reason why we think that, given the different scope of the two proposed regulations, cross-references to Global Europe should be avoided in the asylum, migration, and integration regulation, especially when they go beyond the elements of complementarity between the two funds.
And this complementarity is well illustrated, by the way, in the recitals of our proposed regulation. I also underline that, of course, the actions supported under the army should ensure full coherence with the principles and general objectives of the Union's external policy, with the Union's internal commitments, and the rights and principles in the Union are key. This is regulated both in the army regulations and in the main regulation governing the national and regional partnership plans. We see here a bit of repetition in some of the amendments you propose. The principle of complementarity between our internal policies and the external dimension is expressed in one of the objectives of the proposal, in particular, in the fourth objective proposed under the regulation, which speaks about contributing to AMI with a comprehensive approach for internal and external components of migration and asylum management.
And this reflects what has been established by the pact on migration and asylum, which focuses on a whole-of-government and whole-of-route approach to migration management, seeking to ensure coherence and effectiveness among the actions and measures taken by the Union and its member states internally and externally. And for the army, in this context, we'd see three areas of importance or significance, especially the fight against migrant smuggling, effective returns and readmissions, and legal pathways. And we think that the external dimension of the army should be focused on these three areas. Some specific comments on some of the amendments proposed. The commission proposal seeks to oblige the member states to cover all of the objectives included in the regulation.
And we believe that this approach will ensure that the strategic priorities identified at EU level will be covered. And the external dimension, the balance between internal and external human dimensions, has been included in this respect. Now, adding a new objective could increase rigidity for the member states in addressing all the objectives. And I think I will close here, and thank you again for your attention.
Speaker 4
Alright. Thank you very much, Mister Castellano, for that outline from the Commission's perspective. And now we'll give the floor back to Mr. Kolar for concluding remarks. And you have two minutes. Mister Kolar, the floor is yours.
Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much. And thank you all for the remarks. I think that we can agree on many things that were said here. First of all, I think that we all in the EU should stop portraying migration as a scarecrow. That's very important.
There is migration. We do need certain migration, of course, but the illegal and irregular migration is a problem that we all have to face and try to solve. Although I don't think that the development committee is the one who will solve the whole problem. As I said in the beginning, I think that we have to sort of view migration through the eyes of development policies and through cooperation with third countries. We cannot deny that we have adversaries who have weaponized migration and use it as a hybrid tool to destabilize our system, to destabilize the EU, and that is also something that we have to deal with.
And, again, I think this will be a bit of a challenge because, as I listened to all of your remarks, I think that some of us, or some of you, tend to think that our committee will solve the whole problem and will maybe come up with a universal solution to migration, which, I'm afraid, again, is not our task. So I'm actually very much looking forward to all the negotiations for the final report, and thank you again for the remarks.
Speaker 2
What is done under the external dimension of migration by Global Europe? This is also the reason why we think that, given the different scope of the two proposed regulations, cross-references to Global Europe should be avoided in the asylum, migration, and integration regulation, especially when they go beyond the elements of complementarity between the two funds. This complementarity is well illustrated, by the way, in the recitals of our proposed regulation.
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you, Mr. Kolar. And just to let colleagues know that the deadline for amendments is Monday, March 2, at midday, and we will have a committee vote here on May 5. So that concludes this item. I would just say, item eight is any other business.
Speaker 2
I also underline that, of course, the actions supported under ARMY should ensure full coherence with the principles and general objectives of the Union's external policy, with the Union's instant internal commitments, and the rights and principles in Schindler in the Union are key. This is regulated both in the army regulations and in the main regulation governing the national and regional partnership plans.
Speaker 4
Anybody have anything they wish to add? So the next meeting is tomorrow. We will have joint votes on the Global Gateway report and on the External Action Guarantee with the AFET committee at 9 AM in the SPAC Building. And then the next regular dev meeting is on Tuesday, March 17, Saint Patrick's Day. I would like to thank everyone involved in the smooth running of the meeting.
Speaker 2
We see here a bit of repetition in some of the amendments you propose. The principle of complementarity between our internal policies and the external dimension is expressed in one of the objectives of the proposal, in particular, in the fourth proposal, in the fourth objective proposed under the regulation, which speaks about contributing to AMIT with a comprehensive approach for internal and external components of migration and asylum.
Speaker 4
Thank the interpreters and the secretariat, and we will now have our coordinators' meeting, which will be in camera. So, thank you. Let's move to the coordinators' meeting. Actually, it's 9:30, isn't it? Thank you, Anna.
Thank you so much. Yeah. So we start at 09:30. 09:30 for the coordinator's meeting. We have a twenty-minute break, unfortunately, because we have to give time to the people.
Speaker 2
Management. And these reflect what has been established by the pact of migration and asylum, which focuses on a whole-of-government, whole-of-route approach to migration management, seeking to ensure coherence and effectiveness among the actions and measures taken by the Union and its member states internally and externally.
And for the army in this context, we'd see three areas of importance or significance. And these goals are especially the fight against migrant smuggling, effective returns and readmissions, and legal pathways. We think that the external dimension of the army should be focused on these three areas.
Some specific comments on some of the proposed amendments. The commission proposal seeks to oblige the member states to cover all of the objectives included in the regulation. And we believe that this approach will ensure that the strategic priorities identified at EU level will be covered. The external dimension, the balance between internal and external dimensions, has been included in this respect.
Now, adding a new objective could increase rigidity for the member states in addressing all the objectives. And I think I will close here and thank you again for your attention.
Thank you very much, Mr. Castellano.
Speaker 4
For that outline, from the commission's perspective. And now we'll give the floor back to Mr. Kodar. For concluding remarks, you have two minutes. Mister Kolar, the floor is yours.
Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much. And thank you all for the remarks.
I think that we can agree on many things that were said here. First of all, I think that we all in the EU should stop portraying migration as a scarecrow. That's very important.
There is migration. We do need certain migration. Of course, the illegal and irregular migration is a problem that we all have to face. And try to solve.
Although I don't think that the development committee is the one who will solve the whole problem. As I said in the beginning, I think that we have to sort of view migration through the eyes of development policies and through cooperation with third countries.
We cannot deny that we have adversaries who have weaponized migration and use it as a hybrid tool to destabilize our system and the EU. And that is also something that we have to deal with.
And, again, I think this will be a bit of a challenge because, as I listened to all of your remarks, I think that some of us, or some of you, tend to think that our committee will solve the whole problem and will maybe come up with a universal solution to migration, which, I'm afraid, again, is not our task. So I'm actually very much looking forward to all the negotiations for the final report.
And thank you again for the remarks.
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you, Mr. Kolar. And just to let colleagues know, the deadline for amendments is Monday, March 2, at midday. And we will have a committee vote here on May 5. So that concludes this item.
Just item eight is any other business. Does anybody have anything they wish to add? The next meeting is tomorrow. We will have joint votes on the Global Gateway report and on the External Action Guarantee with the Affect Committee at 9 AM in the SPAC Building.
And then the next regular dev meeting is on Tuesday, the 17th of March. Saint Patrick's Day. I would like to thank everyone involved in the smooth running of the meeting. Thank the interpreters and the secretariat, and we will now have our coordinators' meeting, which will be in camera. So, you.
Let's move to the coordinators' meeting. Actually, it's 9:30. Isn't it? Thank you, Anna. Thank you so much. Yeah.
So, nine thirty. 9:30 for the coordinators. We have a 20-minute break, unfortunately. Because we have to give time to the people.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.