Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-01-Speech-1-105"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
dcterms:Is Part Of
lpv:document identification number
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, I should also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their serious interest and commitment, and all those who have contributed to this report. As regards the problems – and I know that other colleagues will talk more on this – one of the issues which also concerns us is that Dublin II can create pressure on certain Member States which find themselves as primary points of entry to the European Union for asylum-seekers. We are, therefore, asking the Commission to bring forward proposals on so-called ‘burden sharing’ which are not just financial but actually provide a solution for the Member States and the individuals affected. The Dublin II Regulation, as you will know, is part of the European common asylum system and it determines which Member State is responsible for the examination and determination of an asylum claim. Its effect is also linked very much to the sound implementation of other directives, such as the Reception and the Procedures Directives. Our committee report makes clear that the Dublin Regulation, and indeed the system as a whole, is a system based on mutual trust and reliability, so that all Member States have to fulfil their responsibilities. We have a number of concerns which we address in this report – although I obviously will not address them all here – about the quality of delivery in terms of the asylum system, the impact on the individuals concerned and whether Dublin II is effective overall. What problems does it create for some Member States? Are we almost looking at something and making it too simple for the complexity of the issue? On the quality of delivery, we know that there are enormous variations between Member States in delivering a fair and thorough examination of claims for protection. This is unjust for the individual and unfair to other Member States. In fact, looking at one or two Member States within the European Union, if you were an asylum-seeker really fearing for your life you would have to be almost suicidal to claim asylum in one or two of them, because your chances of having your claim recognised would be so low and, therefore, your risk of return would be very high. So we agree as a committee that we wish to see systematic measures taken against those Member States which fail in this respect. A majority in the committee also wants to see the Dublin transfers to such Member States stopped until failures are rectified – although there is an amendment on this issue which we will vote on tomorrow. For the individuals concerned, we want to see a clear improvement in the quality and consistency of decision-making. We want to see cases fully examined on transfer and not closed due to technicalities (our paragraph 11). We want clear information provided to those coming under the Dublin Regulation; we also want to increase the possibility of family reunion and a wider definition of family for this purpose – although, again, I know there is an amendment on this – so that, for example, a minor can be transferred to live with their sole family member in the European Union, even if that person is a cousin rather than a sibling. We also want clear procedures in relation to minors, who should only be transferred for the purpose of family reunion; these procedures should include their representation and accompaniment throughout, so that no child is lost in transit, as has unfortunately happened on a number of occasions. We are also asking for greater use of the humanitarian clause, for example, for those who are particularly vulnerable. We have concerns about the potential extension of Eurodac for purposes other than identification. The Council and the Commission will be aware that Parliament takes such issues very seriously."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:


The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph