Of all the countries in the European Union, it is Luxembourg that has the highest proportion of foreign nationals amongst its population, i.e. 37%. The majority of these foreign nationals, i.e. 87%, are from EU countries. However, for some time now, the proportion of immigrants from third countries has been increasing more rapidly than that of EU citizens from the 14 other Member States. Our labour market depends on the presence of immigrants, although the most severe bottlenecks in our labour market are offset by cross-border commuters from France, Belgium and Germany. Almost a third of the work force, 80 000 people that is, are cross-border commuters. Over half of the working population does not have Luxembourg citizenship. These figures illustrate the interest my country has in a sound immigration policy, and, needless to say, in the important aspect of family reconciliation. It is, of course, one of the Commission‘s tasks, particularly following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, to propose measures on the entry into, and residence, in the European Union, of third-country nationals, primarily with the undeniably admirable aim of bringing about an approximation of the legal provisions of individual Member States on the conditions governing the admission and residence of third-country nationals. The Commission is right to comment, in its proposal for a directive on the right to reunification, that the presence of family members facilitates normal family life, thereby creating greater stability and enabling the individuals concerned to put roots down in the host country more successfully. We are aware, and regard highly the fact, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international conventions recognise the nuclear family as the basic social unit, which deserves protection and support. Against this background, and notwithstanding the fact that some international agreements do not make provision for the right to family reunification, in principle, I still welcome the Commission proposal for a Community legal instrument in respect of family reunification. However, we do not want absolute chaos, and neither do we want to create new opportunities for gangs of human traffickers. Above all, we must ensure that these provisions take the absorption capacity of each Member State into account. This would certainly not be the case if we were to endorse the report of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, in its present form. The rapporteur was entirely justified in withdrawing her name from the report, which was adopted in committee by 25 votes to 13. A directive of the kind proposed by the majority of the committee responsible is simply unworkable, dangerous and counterproductive. Only the amendments put forward by my group and the original rapporteur, Mrs Klamt, could have persuaded me to vote in favour of this report. I am wholeheartedly in favour of family reunification. But how is the family to be defined? How many spouses, in the case of multiple marriages, how many children, partners, dependants in the widest sense of the word, or bogus spouses, should a single, legally resident third country national, be entitled to bring into the European Union? Ten, twenty, a hundred, depending on their own traditions and religion? Humanitarian considerations should undoubtedly play a part, but the whole thing must still be manageable and controllable. Above all, we must ensure that this European directive does not land the individual Member States in a situation which they are no longer able to control. Naturally, where Member States already have more generous provisions, they should be able to retain them. My main objective in drafting this statement was to warn against carrying matters to excess, and the unforeseeable consequences thereof, but without wishing to compromise the principle of family unity. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Political group: PPE-DE