Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-26-Speech-3-385-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111026.23.3-385-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would like to start by thanking all the shadows on this report, the staff members from the three institutions – not least my own office – the Presidencies concerned and the Commission for their interest, effort and commitment over the time we have been negotiating the revision of this directive. I would also like to thank the experts who have supported us.
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. At EU level, it is this directive which sets out the standards for qualification for international protection: for those classic refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution – such as many of those who dared to oppose Colonel Gadaffi and thus qualified for refugee status; and for those at risk of serious harm – perhaps a teenage girl facing the death penalty in Iran for having sexual intercourse outside marriage, who could then perhaps qualify for subsidiary protection.
As well as setting out such criteria, the directive deals with the content of such protection, such as access to healthcare or education. The revision of the directive is limited; it is a recast. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs would like to have dealt with such issues as ‘actors of protection’, where the majority of us believe this should only be the state. That is why we have cited Article 7 as one we think should be looked at in the next review, as should the definition of ‘family members’.
I also wish to put on record my own concern at the lack of change in Article 10(1)(d), where the cumulative definition of a social group was maintained by the Commission rather than being offered as an alternative. I trust, at least, that the ten Member States operating in the optional perspective will continue to do so.
However, some progress has been made. The definition of a social group which could suffer persecution must now include due consideration of gender-related aspects. We have also included a reference to legal tradition and customs in Recital 30. We also include sexual orientation and, for the first time, gender identity. We should not expect people to deny their identity throughout their lifetime in the hope that this will make them safe from persecution.
As concerns children – the topic of the last debate – Recital 18 lays down some principles, though not an exhaustive list, to help in determining the best interests of the child. This principle is also linked to entitlement to benefits. In Article 31 we have sought to improve the tracing of family for unaccompanied minors, across the asylum process.
With regard to the content of protection, we have tried to ensure the same treatment for all beneficiaries of international protection and have achieved this in many areas, notably in terms of recognition of qualifications and access to employment. People want to contribute to the country that is providing protection.
However, a few Member States have insisted on being able to maintain certain differences between the two groups. This seems to be based on the misapprehension that those at risk of serious harm will need protection for a shorter period of time than those at risk of serious persecution. Our fight – maybe I should say our debate – over the length of residence permits yielded a small victory. However, we would invite the Member States most concerned in relation to difference of treatment to reflect as to whether an annual consideration of status is a good use of public money, and whether it reduces administrative burdens or provides a better context for integration than a period of at least three years. After all, there is a possibility of using cessation provisions if a need for protection changes.
To conclude, this revised directive takes small, but important, steps towards a common European asylum policy, but the system is only as common as the consistent high quality of its implementation across all participating Member States. We hope that movement on this directive will help provide impetus for the remaining measures and show that progress is possible."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples