Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-18-Speech-3-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021218.7.3-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, it is a pleasure to be here and address these issues again with Mr Watson who has made a major contribution to this debate in the House as Chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs. I am happy to see that has carried on and followed the evolution of these issues.
The same applies to the standards for expulsion. We believe that we should have some common standards at European level for decisions to return people; I therefore hope we will be able to present some specific proposals on this topic fairly soon. I recognise that the Commission does not have any instrument for monitoring post-return situations. It is not within our remit and we do not have the tools to make such an evaluation.
Of course, I welcome the idea of having a broad debate on return policy. As you know, we have published a Green Paper, we have presented an action plan and the Council has endorsed this action plan. I hope that, in the framework of the debate on communications about migration and development, we will be able, together with Parliament, to discuss what the key elements of return policy in the European Union are. I am looking forward to hearing Parliament's view on this subject.
Commencing with Hong Kong, we welcome this first ever European Community readmission agreement with a third country or territory. It proves not only the willingness of Hong Kong to commit to cooperation in the management of migratory fluxes with the European Union, but it also reinforces the credibility of the 'One Country, Two Systems' principle.
As far as this concrete agreement is concerned, we have adopted a balanced approach. As you may recall, the European Union decided to grant visa-free access to Hong Kong citizens in March 2001 and, at the same time, we proposed the negotiation of a readmission agreement.
I recognise that we should have kept Parliament better informed regarding these negotiations. In my defence, the only thing I can say is that there was only one round of negotiations. It would have been difficult to inform Parliament in the middle of the talks. Nevertheless, we take seriously the fact that we will now negotiate several readmission agreements. We need to introduce practical ways of consulting Parliament and keeping Parliament informed. I can assure you that I have already contacted the secretariat of the Citizens' Rights Committee to establish how Parliament can be granted direct access to information on how negotiations on readmission agreements are developing. I hope that I will be here next time to discuss readmission agreements with you and that I will then have a better story to tell you.
As far as the oral question is concerned, the Commission does not have exact figures concerning the overall scale of voluntary and forced repatriation promoted by Member States. I can tell you that an average of 40% of the money allocated to Member States in the European Fund for Refugees is used to finance voluntary return. Only voluntary return comes under the provisions of the Fund for European Refugees.
According to CIREFI statistics for 2001, with returns from 12 of the 15 Member States – the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands did not provide figures – a total of around 333 000 people have been returned.
In 2002, from January to September, 98 000 people have been returned by Member States, but this figure does not include the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg which have not provided us with the figures.
I recognise that we need to have more accurate statistics on these issues. For instance, I cannot distinguish between voluntary returns and forced returns because national Member States' statistics do not make the distinction. I can give you the citizenship of those who have been returned but I cannot tell you to where they have been returned because, as you know, some of them have not been returned to their own country, they have been returned to the countries through which they entered the European Union. We recognise the need for better information and, therefore, we will present a proposal during the Greek presidency to have a specific instrument for exchange of harmonised and standardised statistics so far as asylum and migration policy are concerned.
With regard to enforcement of decisions to return people, the Commission has no responsibilities so far as enforcement is concerned. That is exclusively the responsibility of the Member States. Nevertheless, we believe that some instruments should be adopted at European level. For instance, mutual recognition of expulsion decisions is a key element. There is an instrument with very limited scope in this area; we are now assessing how it has been working in practice and I hope that next spring we can present you with our evaluation of how mutual recognition of expulsion decisions works in the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples