Mr President, let me begin by thanking all those fellow MEPs who have contributed so much time and energy to what I think has been an extremely fruitful collaborative exercise. It was in mid-September, and in this Chamber, that by far the most important conference on the subject of trafficking in human beings to date was organised by the International Organisation for Migration and the European Commission. It resulted in the so-called Brussels Declaration, and in this Brussels Declaration you can clearly see the central importance of the directive that you have before you to vote on today. It is important to point out straightaway that trafficking in human beings and smuggling of human beings form an integral part of our economy today. It is essentially about treating people as if they were nothing more than merchandise. At the same time victims of trafficking in human beings are victims of a whole range of abuses and criminal practices. Trafficking in human beings has now also become the subject matter for committees, with nearly everyone seeming to want to take up a position on it. What is frequently overlooked is that trafficking in human beings is proliferating because corruption, along with indifference and disbelief, is proliferating. In a number of countries soon to become members of the European Union, parents sell their children in the hope of giving them a better future. This proposal for a directive is a first and consequently important step towards eventual concrete action. The directive requires the Member States to issue a short-term residence permit to victims of smuggling of human beings or of trafficking in human beings who are prepared to cooperate with the competent authorities. The essence of the proposal is that, here, governments and the victims have shared interests, in particular that the criminal networks be shut down. For the purposes of this special directive, the Commission has taken trafficking in human beings and smuggling of human beings together. It is indeed the case that in purely legal terms they are two quite different things, but in reality the distinction is extremely difficult to make. This proposal for a directive is however based on thorough practical knowledge of experts active in the field. The experience we have acquired in Belgium for example proves that the instrument of a short-term residence permit does not miss its mark. Other Member States too have such systems, albeit with varying degrees of success. I fully support the Commission’s proposal and it is fundamentally important that its content remains intact. First and foremost this means that some of the amendments touched on by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs are unacceptable, in particular, for me, Amendments Nos 7 and 27, for the simple reason that they tear the proposal apart. They turn it into an empty shell. Voting for these amendments will be barely concealed approval for the practices of organised crime. What I want to say is that this directive stands or falls by the minimum social provision for victims. A victim will never want to cooperate if he or she is not offered the beginnings of an alternative to the situation in which they currently find themselves. Allow me to say a few words on two other points. Firstly, there are some who would want this directive to apply immediately to minors too. At first glance this seems a good idea, simply because we can never do enough for the extremely vulnerable position of minors. What is forgotten, however, is that what this directive is offering in the end is only a minimum. Minors are offered very much more today in all the Member States and it would therefore be a real step back if minors were only accorded such minimal protection and rights. This does not alter the fact that there is a real need for a special effort for victims who are minors. Finally, I would like to say something else regarding a number of original amendments from Mrs van der Laan – Amendments Nos 20, 25 and 35. Her alert legal mind envisages the possibility that in certain cases contact between victim and criminal can be accepted by the authorities to further the investigation. It is a tempting idea, but it is a legal minefield in a number of countries. The risk of kidnappings or even of manipulation and intimidation is also very real. Victims willing to cooperate with the authorities want absolutely no contact at all with the criminals, not even from a distance. I should also like to emphasise that this directive sets aside a special place for specialised and recognised NGOs, but also for international organisations and government agencies. As Mrs van der Laan has likewise rightly said – and, although this, because of a technical error, does not appear in the text in front of you, it has been noted on the voting list – NGOs also have a special part to play as intermediaries between the investigation and prosecution services on the one hand and the victim on the other. It is also important in this regard to emphasise that where NGOs are concerned they must be NGOs recognised by the state. After all, anyone, even criminals, can set up NGOs. Or, as not uncommonly happens, NGOs can be infiltrated and manipulated. I therefore think that everyone involved with this matter should sign a code of conduct.

Political group: Verts-ALE