Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021021.7.1-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for this debate, which has raised some extremely important questions, to which I should like to respond. Firstly, the Commission unequivocally defends the primacy of the implementation of the 1951 Geneva Convention, which is binding on all Member States. We have also covered rules on subsidiary protection and, on this matter, I should like to put Mr Berthu’s mind at ease: we have created nothing new; this is not the invention of a Commissioner’s Machiavellian mind. Subsidiary protection is already in place in our fifteen Member States. It arises from international commitments given by these countries, for example, when they signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the criteria laid down in its Article 3.
With regard to the scope of this directive, I should like to say that the Commission does not accept the proposals for amendments tabled by some Members, seeking to add new grounds or to add an exhaustive list of exclusion clauses for the definition of a refugee under the Geneva Convention. We cannot accept these because the European Union does not have the authority to amend the content of the Geneva Convention. It can only be amended with the agreement of the 150 States that are parties to it. This process has been opened by the United Nations High Commissioner but we are not in a position unilaterally to amend the Convention.
Similarly, we believe that the proposals on procedural guarantees, as generous as they are, should not be included in this directive. The issue of procedures should be dealt with in the proposal on that subject, on which the Commission has tabled an amended proposal. By the same token, I wish to say to Mr Pirker that this is not the proper place in which to deal with issues of return, the Dublin II Regulation, or cooperation with third countries. These issues are important, I agree with you – and the Commission will be working on them, as indicated at the Seville Council.
Last week, therefore, the Commission tabled four new proposals for negotiating readmission agreements with Turkey, Algeria, Albania and the People’s Republic of China. Over a year ago, the Commission presented a regulation on which State should be held responsible for studying asylum requests, known as the ‘Dublin II Regulation’, which, I hope, will be concluded by the end of this year and the Commission will, in November, present its action plan for returns policy, as well as a framework for financial action for cooperation with third countries in the fight against illegal immigration.
With regard to the issue of equal rights amongst refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, the Commission believes that the rights pertaining to the beneficiaries of these two different types of protection must be the same. We feel, however, that there should be a ‘cooling-off’ period and, therefore, we proposed that there should be a distinction, precisely in order to acknowledge the primacy of the implementation of the Geneva Convention.
Finally, why did we include subsidiary protection in this proposal? Let us be quite clear about this. Today, in all Member States of the European Union, the majority of persons receiving international protection do not receive this protection under the Geneva Convention but under systems of subsidiary protection. And if we wish to combat secondary movements, if we wish to combat ‘asylum shopping’ it would be of little value merely to include only the Geneva Convention. The essence of ‘asylum shopping’, the essence of secondary movements lies in the competitiveness of subsidiary protection systems, to which we can add – please forgive me for saying so, ladies and gentlemen – that it is unfair to accuse the Commission of extending the concept of economic refugees by means of subsidiary protection. On the contrary, only by dealing with the harmonisation of subsidiary protection will it be possible to adopt the so-called single procedure, which has been welcomed, as a matter of fact, by an increasing number of Member States, in which requests for asylum are studied in order of priority in a single administrative process and are subject to a single final decision. This is known as ‘streamlining procedures’. This is a way of rationalising procedures that saves time, administrative means and money without having to provide unnecessary resources.
Finally, Mr President, Mr von Boetticher claimed that I bear a major responsibility for this matter and in doing so paid me a compliment which I really do not deserve. It is not the Commission proposals that are blocking the Council’s decision-making ability. I must tell you sincerely that this is an area in which the Member States have initiative of legislation. Can Mr von Boetticher have asked himself why if, in these matters, the Commission proposals are as bad as he says, no Member State has tabled a proposal that has rapidly achieved the consensus of the fifteen Member States and has been adopted? This is an issue which I believe is relevant. The only innovation in this proposal, admittedly, is to extend the concept of cause of persecution to cover persecution by non-State actors. This is true. This is the situation in thirteen of the fifteen Member States, and has recently also been incorporated into German law. Am I really the most appropriate target for Mr von Boetticher’s words?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples