Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Extraordinary 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
LIBE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
My aim has been to arrive at a balanced tax that ensures an effective return policy while not losing sight of environmental rights. And I'm convinced that the compromise presented today by me as Repatha appropriately reflects this balance. My focus remains on constructive and workable solutions that can deliver effective return regulation, and it has always been my aim to come to a negotiating mandate as soon as possible, so as to also start the trial of negotiating. Do people expect Mike? Dysfunctional.
Wow. People expect that from us, and we as parliaments also have to deliver. It's quite clear, though, that those not eligible to stay in the European Union also need to be returned. And I want to thank all the shadows so far and their teams for the hard work on this file, and that is from each political group, just from the left to the ESN. And I especially want to thank the Liebe secretariat for all their support so far during this process, and I think we really need to be proud of the excellent staff we have in our committee.
I would also like to thank them, and it's now up to you, Chair, to bring it to a vote. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mister Osmani. You, Mr. Osmani. You're taking the floor? Then there are no further requests for the floor.
We proceed to the vote. First, we will vote on the proposal for rejection, then on the compromise amendments, and finally on the alternative compromise amendments. All of them will be roll-call votes. So, we start with amendment 200. The vote is open.
The vote is closed, and it is rejected. Then, we move on to compromise amendment 1. Bote is open. The vote is now.
One is sending too many.
Speaker 4
Yeah. Apparently, there's one member of the S and D group too many. Okay. It's okay. Yes.
Javier Zarzalejos
So, the vote is closed, and the result is no. It is rejected. Rejected. It is rejected. Then, we move on to the compromise alternative.
Alternative compromise amendment 1. The vote is open. It is now closed, and it has been adopted. Now, we move to compromise amendment 2. The boat is open.
It is now closed, and it is rejected. Then, alternative compromise amendment two: the vote is open. The vote is now closed, and it is adopted. Now, alternate, compromise amendment three; the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is rejected.
Then, alternative compromise amendment three: the vote is open. The vote is now closed, and it is adopted. And then we vote, the final vote, on the draft text as amended. The vote is open. It's now closed, and it has been adopted.
We're not done yet. We have not finished yet. We have not finished yet. And now, we vote on Monday to enter into inter-institutional negotiations. The vote is open.
The body is now closed. The request to enter into inter-institutional negotiations is adopted. Yeah. You have the floor. Yes.
Speaker 2
Yeah. Sorry, Chairman. Following that vote, I would like to present a minority opinion. Article 2 of the Treaty on the EU says that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. The report adopted today authorizes the setting up of return hubs in third countries, and it goes in the opposite direction.
No human dignity, no freedom, no equality, no rule of law for people who are sent to return hubs, and no respect for human rights. For them, just an uncertain future in an unknown country. According to the report, these centers can be used to detain people for indefinite periods. And in exchange for an undefined sum of money, the hubs can be set up without any legally binding framework. There is no legal obligation that will be imposed on third countries regarding the conditions and legal requirements for these hubs.
There is no information provided, for example, regarding who is legally responsible for the people sent to these hubs, at what time the legal responsibility changes, and under which legal rule. There is no transparency regarding the outcome for people sent to these centers. Nobody will know who is being paid what for these hubs. And above and beyond the hubs, the report reduces the possibilities for voluntary return. It foresees increased conditions for detention.
There is a surprisingly long list of vague obligations for people who are subject to a return decision. There are unrealistic time frames when it comes to limiting the right to an effective appeal. It suppresses the suspensive effect of appeals, allowing third-country nationals to avoid an entry ban by paying, and it includes legally dubious provisions punishing third countries judged to be non-cooperative. By externalizing our asylum and returns policy in this way to third countries, we are entering a new era of trade in persons, in which migrants are expelled against their will in return for money. This is a geopolitical error at a time when the EU has so much need for alliances based on shared values.
And as regards this, it is a reversal for our defense of European values.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Your statement is clearly noted and should be next to the report. Then, any other Mr. Belami? Mister.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
It's I who decide who takes the floor. Okay? Please, Mr. Bellamy. Thank you.
Speaker 8
You, Chairman. As the teleoperator for the EPP on this text, I would simply like to thank all colleagues who have enabled us today to make this vital progress regarding the EU's policy on migration. We had a European directive, which, since 2008, has shown itself to be ineffective, and the revision has been blocked since 2018. And now, we have managed to ensure that the proposal tabled by the Commission, which is now to be negotiated by member states, has been adopted with significant progress, enabling us to tackle irregular migration. And that means giving citizens in our countries trust in our ability to decide on our own migration policy.
And it also enables us to properly combat trafficking in human beings, the sordid business of the people smugglers who are now taking advantage of our inability to control our borders. And I'd like to express my appreciation for the rapporteur Malik Kazmani, who has done everything within his power to ensure that the broadest possible compromise could be reached. And I'd also like to say to all of the shadow rapporteurs that we recognize all the work that has been done. We now have a clear, strong majority. There is a negotiating mandate for the trial log, which will enable us to make swift progress towards an agreement with member states and the Commission.
And we can now be confident that, working with the EPP, there will be a key date coming up for building a Europe that has the trust of its citizens. Thank you.
Tineke Strik
Thank you for giving me the floor for a minority opinion. Instead of introducing meaningful changes to EU rules of return, this report perpetuates a dangerous and divisive myth that the current challenges in return policies are caused primarily by non-compliant individuals and that a significant number of returnees who are denied the right to stay in the EU pose a threat to our security. This premise is in direct contradiction to earlier analysis by the EU return coordinator on what the exact existing bottlenecks are. For instance, among a few problems, member states do not have efficient procedures in place, and facts and evidence don't seem to play a role. Without an impact assessment, the Commission's claim that its proposal will make returns more efficient cannot be verified.
Meanwhile, the punitive approach taken by this report, and particularly the possibility for member states to forcibly deport people to return hubs in third countries that they have never been to and where they are likely to be subject to detention and end up in a legal limbo, will inevitably lead to fundamental rights violations. In addition to being inhumane and contrary to our EU funding values, these measures are likely to be counterproductive, inefficient, and expensive to implement. We find it shameful that, with this report, the parliament is contributing to a decline in evidence-based policymaking, which has been increasingly evident in the area of migration in the past years. Thank you.
Speaker 14
This report is the final piece of a plan for the mass deportation of third-country nationals from the European Union. A plan which, as we saw in the United States, will lead to racial profiling, mass arrest, detention of children, and deportation to countries where people have never been. All of this will put the lives of many people living in the European Union at risk. Like in the United States, anyone who gets a deportation order will be automatically detained for a period that can be up to 2 years, not because they committed a crime, but because of their administrative status. And under these conditions, they will not have the necessary time to ensure their right to an effective remedy.
Speaker 13
Actually, voluntary return will become de facto impossible. What is also very worrying is that the proposal allows for indefinite detention and entry bans of third-country nationals who have not been convicted under criminal law by any court. So that's another red line: that of the EU legislative procedure. We are moving towards an EU that is trampling on its own values and the dignity of human beings. That is why this is a clear violation of the commitments that member states have taken regarding fundamental rights enshrined in international law and European legislation.
Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Miss Alice. Your statement will be annexed to the report. Then, we conclude our meeting, and have a nice rest of the evening. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.