Penalties, but also safeguards for rights
Parliament’s rapporteur, Claudio Fava (PES, IT) welcomed the “excellent proposal”, as “migrants are often subjected to terrible exploitation, sometimes even treated as slaves,” he said, adding that the phenomenon is often associated with organised crime.
Nevertheless, he saw a contradiction: “This directive will punish employers who use black-market labour made up of illegal immigrants – but not where the employees are legal immigrants. In Italy, criminal gangs deal mainly in Romanian and Polish immigrants.”
According to the rapporteur, the directive should only set out “minor” penalties when the employer is an individual rather than a company. He also said that the payment of salary arrears due to the workers should be made before they are returned to their country of origin, and not afterwards as the Commission proposes.
Penalties too harsh?
Simon Busuttil (EPP-ED, MT) said it the proposal was needed “to fight against black-market employment in our countries.” Nevertheless, he believed that having penalties as severe as closing down the company concerned was going too far: “That should be reserved for criminals,” he said.
What about resident migrants?
Stavros Lambrinidis (PES, EL) asked: “Why should we devote so many resources to tackling the employment of illegal immigrants when the main problem in the Member States is to make sure labour laws are enforced, for [legally] resident migrants too?” He said “I am in favour of tackling exploitation... but I get the feeling that is not the aim of this proposal.”
If there is an illegal job, then someone else in unemployed
Ignasi Guardans (ALDE, ES) supported the proposal, but said it was “dangerous to ignore the fact that if there is an illegal job, someone else is unemployed.” He said the Commission should have put forward two proposals, “one to punish, and the other to ensure that the positions in question are filled with legal employees.”
Bonuses for whistle-blowers?
Giusto Catania (GUE/NGL, IT) said the proposal should provide for bonuses for black-market workers who blow the whistle on their employers. “With this directive, we risk penalising the migrants when we should be punishing the employers (...) Let’s make an effort allow for the possibility of the worker staying on in the EU to have their status regularised,” he said, calling the proposal “an extension of the return directive.”
More positive approaches needed
Catelene Passchier of the European Trades Union Congress said she was worried by the proposal, which “told people that we can solve the problem of illegal immigration with repressive measures.” Instead, “what we want is to put the emphasis on enforcing existing standards.” She said that “Member States should have the option of developing more positive and effective approaches... including legalising the status of the people concerned.”
Steven D’Haeseleer of BusinessEurope, the employers’ organisation, said he was “very interested in the proposal,” stressing that black-market labour represented “unfair competition” for honest businesses. He pointed out, however, that “Member States already have penalties available, but they are not applied. Adding an EU level would not improve that.” In addition, “some of the penalties are disproportionate,” he said, and the proposal “does not respect the principle of subsidiarity.”
Getting rid of a factor attracting illegal immigration
Jean-Louis de Brouwer, Director for Immigration in the Directorate General for Freedom, Security and Justice at the Commission, said the directive would “allow us to get rid of a factor attracting illegal immigration into Europe.” The text was “where two policies – on immigration and employment – came together.” The parameters proposed were limited but vital, he said, since the penalties in different Member States “are extremely unequal.”
Jean-Christophe Peaucelle, head of the European Affairs section of the French Immigration Ministry, spoke for the Council presidency. He said the subject “was of particular importance in the light of the French Presidency’s priorities” and that “there is a consensus on the need to work together to define a common policy on immigration which is both coherent and fair.”
His view was that the text aimed to “punish to set an example”. The proposal had already been pared down through negotiations in Council, he said, “which is inevitable to get a compromise” and he hoped to get the proposal into law during the French presidency, which would necessitate a first reading agreement with the Parliament.
