Mr President, today, the European Parliament is again taking a position over the Council’s proposal on family reunification. In this connection, we should remember that the Council has already laid down a general approach, on 27 February this year. While the right to live with one’s family is recognised by international conventions and referred to in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is disgraceful to see that the Council’s approach casts serious doubts over this right for residents from third countries. If we take into consideration the Tampere Summit, which sought to establish a common approach in order to guarantee, in accordance with human rights instruments, the integration of third-country nationals legally resident in the Union, this new approach is a genuine downward adjustment. As certain Members are saying, it is true that this directive is better than nothing when we know of the difficulties encountered to reach this point. But we cannot avoid condemning its minimalist aspect, despite all the goodwill of the rapporteur, whom we sincerely thank for her work. Nevertheless, allow me to make some criticisms. Why exclude people who enjoy temporary protection or subsidiary protection status? Excluded from the asylum system by this proposal, they have become rightless. They are also excluded from all the directives on third-country nationals. Moreover, why restrict family reunification purely to the legal spouse and dependent children under certain circumstances? Nothing justifies making the admission of minors over 12 years old subject to the condition for integration, or excluding minor children over 15 years old. The definition of a third-country national child should be the same as that of another European child. A child is a child. Whatever his nationality, he has the right to live with his parents. This provision appears to run counter to Member States’ international obligations on children’s rights. Such inconsistencies are unjustified and unjustifiable. As regards the length of the procedure, as soon as the application for family reunification is submitted, it must be possible for this to take effect within a reasonable time. A waiting time of three years of marriage is much too long. We do not ask Europeans to have been married for three years before they can live together. Yet the principle of the right to live as a family is simple. When a foreigner legally resident in a Union Member State holds a residence permit valid for one year, the right to family reunification should be automatic. Furthermore, with this restrictive proposal, family life is in danger of becoming an ordeal, especially for women. In actual fact, the directive stipulates that the grant of a residence permit is limited to a period of one year and is renewable under certain circumstances. Now, the permit issued should have the same duration as that of the spouse. The stipulated period of five years before an autonomous residence permit is granted to the spouse is much too long. The lack of legal autonomy often makes women totally dependent on their husbands, which is unacceptable in a Europe that upholds women’s rights. Moreover, given that access to employment for members of the family is not a right from the moment of entry, this forces one of the spouses to bear all the expenses and block any social integration of the other spouse. This proposal for a directive is the result of a philosophy which conflicts with that adopted last year. Not only does it conflict with the talk of integration urged by many of those involved, but it also incites immigrants’ children to violent reactions in the face of the injustice experienced.

Political group: Verts-ALE