Last Wednesday the European Parliament adopted my report on a Common Immigration Policy for the European Union.

I feel proud that, after putting in a great deal of work into this project over the past months, I have managed to bring it to a positive conclusion with a wide endorsement in Parliament.

I feel privileged to have been given the task to draw up this report, which now frames the European Parliament’s position on where it wants a common EU immigration policy to go.

It was not a piece of cake by far.

Suffice it to say that after I presented my original draft last February, I received as many as 234 amendments from the different political groups in Parliament and I have had to seek compromises, often difficult ones, on a number of aspects of the policy. Negotiations to hammer out a common position were tough and the number of amendments attests to the wide political differences at play. This stands to reason, given the sensitivity and the complexity of this policy area. In turn, this explains also why forging a common immigration policy for Europe has been such a Herculean task.

We all had to make compromises and we managed to reach agreement on virtually all issues. I also managed to overrule a number of amendments that would have introduced political ideas I could not accept, such as the restriction of detention policy and the dilution of the return of irregular immigrants.

The only exception was the issue of voting rights for migrants, where despite my strong opposition and that of my group, the EPP-ED group, a coalition composed of Socialists, Greens, Communists and Liberals managed to prevail to insert a paragraph in my report which calls on national authorities to grant voting rights for migrants in local elections. I will come back to this issue on another occasion.

The political message

The main political message of the report is that the European Parliament strongly supports a common immigration policy for Europe. And it wants a coherent policy rather than the fragmented approach that we have had so far, since only a coherent policy can be truly effective.

This sounds self-evident. But when you consider the resistance that a number of EU countries still raise to common action such as, for instance, on burden-sharing, it was important that of the three main EU institutions, the European Parliament makes its stand for common action unequivocal.

Three parts

My report is divided into three parts that look at immigration policy from the perspective of prosperity, security and solidarity. Clearly, the solidarity pillar is key for me, as a Maltese MEP, and the importance of solidarity and burden sharing is duly reflected in my report.

In each of these sections, the report goes into detail on the actions that the European Parliament expects the Union to take in the years to come. It is a detailed plan of action, prepared conscientiously and studiously. It is not sporadic. This is why it obtained wide consensus.

These are the main points that emerge from the report and where Parliament is laying most emphasis.

Human tragedy

First of all, the report puts the human tragedy that is currently taking place as a result of unrestrained illegal immigration as a central purpose for seeking common action. It rightly calls for immediate action to stop this human tragedy once and for all.

Let us not forget that we are here talking about human lives here. More lives were lost at sea as a result of immigrant crossings than in the conflict in Gaza last year or in the conflict in Lebanon the year before. So it stands to reason that urgent action and common European action on immigration is a must, if only to put a stop to this human tragedy. There are several reasons that justify calls for common action, but surely this must be the most compelling one. The sooner the tragedy is stopped the better.

Burden-sharing

Secondly, my report calls for a swift implementation of the burden-sharing mechanism that was agreed last year in the EU Immigration Pact. Last October, the mechanism was accepted in principle, albeit on a voluntary basis. That was fine since even a voluntary arrangement had found strong resistance.

But now that this first step has been made and the principle of burden sharing has been accepted, we need to move on and convert it into a binding commitment.

On a similar vein, my report also refers to the ongoing work on the Commission’s proposal to change the Dublin regulation in order to suspend it in the case of countries, such as Malta, which are carrying a disproportionate burden. I am personally following this dossier in Parliament.

Returns

Secondly, more emphasis should be placed on the return of migrants who do not qualify for protection to stay in the EU territory. There are no two ways about this. Those who are not eligible to stay must leave. Or be returned. And due emphasis should be placed by the EU on a coordinated and effective returns policy.

I have to say that it was hard to push this through owing to the resistance of the Socialists, Greens and Communists who seem to consider the return of irregular immigrants as some kind of evil rather than a mere consequence of the rule of law. Thankfully, their efforts to water down the report’s insistence on returns were largely overruled.

Agreements with third countries

Fourthly, all EU agreements with third countries must include a chapter on immigration. To date this has not always been the case and we have found difficulty convincing third country partners to cooperate with Europe on immigration when we could have easily exerted their commitment during negotiations on the co-operation agreements that the EU has concluded with them.

And when provisions were inserted, these have generally been weak or left unused. A case in point is the Cotonou Agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

My report insists that, from now on, agreements with third countries must include a chapter on immigration. This also applies in the case of Libya, which is currently engaged in negotiations with the EU on a global agreement. We want co-operation on immigration to be included in this agreement.

Frontex

Fifthly, my report calls for the strengthening of the Frontex agency, not just from a financial resources point of view but more importantly also in terms of capacity to act in its missions.

The European Parliament has already provided great support for this agency. Over the past two years, I have personally tabled amendments to increase the agency’s budget by as much as e50 million.

Yet, we now need to move on and take a closer look at the agency’s capacity to act in its missions.

Given that Frontex does not have its own assets, it has to rely on assets that are placed at its disposal by individual EU countries. Yet, more often than not, these promises to supply assets have not been fulfilled, leaving Frontex looking silly and unable to undertake effective missions. What we want is to ensure that a binding instrument is introduced to ensure that commitments of this nature are truly honoured.

The fight against criminal

organisations

Finally, my report also calls for the Union to step up its fight against organised crime and human trafficking. We all know that the hundreds of boat crossings that reach Europe are masterminded by criminal organisations and it is high time that effective action is taken to root them out. This will require the co-operation of third countries from where immigrants embark.

A comprehensive programme

As you can see, the report presents a truly comprehensive action programme that should guide the European Union in its path towards the establishment of a truly common immigration policy in the months and years to come.

I am proud that, as a Maltese MEP, I have drafted this report and that, in turn, I have contributed to influence this sensitive, yet important policy on behalf of the European Parliament.

If you can make the time, I strongly urge you to read it. It makes interesting reading. My report is available on my website www.simonbusuttil.eu