Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.6.2-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in our view the Commission's proposal for a directive on temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons forms part of a global vision of how to establish a European asylum system. The European Union needs an exceptional mechanism at its disposal so that it can react rapidly to mass influxes and respond immediately to the need to protect displaced persons, a situation we have seen in Bosnia and Kosovo.
I warmly thank the Members who have taken part in this debate. Let me draw particular attention to the contribution made by the rapporteur, Mr Wiebenga, with his excellent report. If I am a little nervous today it is because he taught me a great deal about the subject and I feel rather like a student facing his professor. I am a teacher by profession. So you know what I am talking about. But in any case I want to say that we have taken careful note of all the amendments that were tabled. I regard these amendments, even those on solidarity, as a source of inspiration for the several weeks of negotiations that lie before us in the Council, which should produce a final result in May. At least I hope we will reach a conclusion by the May Council.
Some of your amendments modify the level of beneficiaries' rights and the Commission remains very keen to see a fair level that cannot be revised downwards. As for solidarity, we note that some provisions have been strengthened, especially those concerning reception between Member States. Despite the delicate nature of this question, we are doing our best to find a realistic, fair and, in particular, viable solution. Once the principle of voluntary action by both sides is respected, some amendments, in spirit if not literally, could, as I said earlier, help bring the negotiations to a final conclusion.
The object of this mechanism is to ensure that the asylum system can work over the long term, while also ensuring that it is consistent with access to the normal asylum procedure and with the Geneva Convention.
We based our proposal on the idea that Member States must grant temporary protection on the basis of a Council decision, adopted by a qualified majority, that confirms the existence of a mass influx. That protection is granted for not more than two years, but the Council may also at any time, if the conditions are right, terminate it by joint decision.
I believe that while the directive gives the Member States a degree of flexibility in managing their asylum system for the duration of the temporary protection, it also guarantees the beneficiaries absolute access to the asylum procedure, and at all events does so at the moment when the protection period expires. We have finally established not only equal rights for those enjoying temporary protection but also principles governing returnees.
In Tampere, the Heads of State and Government emphasised the need to ensure solidarity between the Member States on the question of temporary protection. And we know that the European Parliament is extremely concerned with this principle. I believe I discussed it with Mr Nassauer more than seven years ago. That is why the Commission has endeavoured to give a clear form to the concept of Community solidarity and greater depth to the content of Article 63(2)(b), on the balance of effort and responsibility between the Member States.
This solidarity is reflected first of all in the financial aspect, thanks to the links created with the European Refugee Fund. I know that the financing of that fund is not very ambitious, but perhaps this is an area where it would be more rational to ask how the fund can help to strengthen financial solidarity. At the same time, let me emphasise, in this proposal we have adhered to the principle of sharing the burden with regard to the physical reception of the refugees. This solidarity between Member States with regard to reception is reflected in the principle of voluntary action by both sides.
I understand Mr von Boetticher's problem and even agree with his comment about the difficulties. The idea of ensuring voluntary action by both sides first came up during the German Presidency and has gained ground. Of course, it presupposes both that the Member States are willing to take in refugees and that the beneficiaries in their turn are willing to go to the territory of the Member State in question. That is why, from the outset, the decision to grant temporary protection specifies either the capacity of Member States to absorb refugees or the exceptional reasons that prevent them from taking in any more displaced persons. But I do want to emphasise that these really must be exceptional reasons.
Basically, refusal to accept new refugees where a decision has been taken to grant temporary protection must be quite exceptional. Moreover, the concept of voluntary action by both sides introduces a transparent system. And that transparent decision-making system is essential, for peer-group pressure has a role to play here: it must persuade everyone to agree to cooperate in the matter of reception, including the physical reception of beneficiaries of temporary protection.
I cannot guarantee that the system will work. But at least we have tried to design an instrument that will guarantee the principle of solidarity in the matter of physical reception, and the principle of financial solidarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples