Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-20-Speech-4-051"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010920.6.4-051"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you, Madam President. I have to say that having been a Member of the European Parliament myself for ten years, it is little short of a miracle to hear you say that I have time to speak!
Madam President, to conclude, the Commission reiterates its appreciation of the quality of the draft legislative resolution before us today. It agrees with the general spirit of this resolution, but must nevertheless clearly inform this House about the difficulties that exist. We need to take account of the constraints on the preparation of our amended proposal, and, furthermore, we hope that the Laeken European Council will give the European Union the necessary impetus to finally put into practice the aspirations declared in 1999 at Tampere.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission very much welcomes the in-depth consideration that Parliament has given to this proposal. I would like to tell Mr Watson how much we have appreciated his work. Furthermore, the number and quality of the amendments are bound to add to the debate, and this comes at a crucial point in the process of creating a common policy on asylum.
I would first like to put this proposal in its proper overall context. The Tampere European Council actually wanted to create a common European asylum system and it agreed on a two-phase approach to achieve this. Firstly, the adoption of minimum common standards in the areas laid down in Article 63 of the Treaty, and then the development of a common procedure and uniform status for persons under international protection. The achievement of the first phase was dependent on the Commission adopting a certain number of legislative initiatives, which did indeed take place with the adoption on 12 September of a proposal for a directive on determining the status and forms of subsidiary protection. So this cycle is now complete. Furthermore, in its communication of November 2000, on which this House, Madam President, will give its opinion on 2 October, the Commission proposed moving on to the second phase by means of a special methodology. Its intention is to present this methodology in this communication and to draw lessons from the first year's work, and it will make proposals for new directions in the run-up to the Laeken European Council.
The proposal that we are discussing today is one of the most important and most sensitive aspects of this system. It was prepared chiefly on the basis of information drawn from a wide-ranging consultation process based on a working document presented in March 1999. The European Parliament had an opportunity to give its views in June 2000 and the Commission took on board many of the recommendations brought forward at that time.
Madam President, today’s resolution comes at a turning point in work in this area. I say that because the Belgian Presidency, with the support of the Commission, intends to use the coming months to make significant progress on asylum matters. This dossier, like immigration in general, should be one of the key aspects of the interim balance sheet of the implementation of the Tampere decisions and will therefore be prepared by the European Council by the end of this year. Against this background, the Council of Ministers is due to hold an exploratory debate on 27 and 28 September and the outcome of that debate will determine how ambitious we are in our overall approach in this area. We need to remember that our objective is to approximate national arrangements on procedures. I would add that this work will also extend to the two other proposals, one on reception conditions for asylum-seekers and the other on the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for asylum. What is more, these three texts are interlinked. They need to be seen as a whole and I believe in fact that this House has always seen things in that light. I would like to take the liberty of encouraging the European Parliament to give its opinion on these two other initiatives as quickly as possible.
With particular reference to procedures, there is no denying that there is a great disparity in a number of key areas. And I do not believe that that should come as a surprise to us, because this initiative deals with a great many technically complex issues, which in itself is not so difficult, but they are also politically sensitive, which in the present political climate is a real problem. Furthermore, the Council’s technical bodies have not yet completed the first reading, which means that the Member States’ delegations have not yet had an opportunity to express their views on certain key provisions. This is one of the reasons, Madam President, why it is difficult at this stage to comment in a definite way on this House’s amendments on appeal procedures, because we are still waiting for the Council to analyse and examine this issue.
Lastly, the discussions in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and the content of the excellent draft legislative resolution presented by Mr Watson confirm the feeling that there is at present a clear divergence – as you know and as was evident this morning – between the expectations of the European Parliament and the capacity of the Council to reach unanimous agreement. So the Commission is to some extent between two stools, as it were, but it intends to take on board your opinion, and the guidelines that may emerge from the discussions at ministerial level, as a basis for preparing an amended proposal so as to facilitate a possible consensus. In this context it seems vital to maintain the balance sought in the original proposal between, on the one hand, the desire to consolidate the rights of asylum-seekers, with due respect for international instruments, and in particular the Geneva Convention, and, on the other hand, the need for efficient and swift procedures and the need to achieve a degree of convergence so as to prevent ‘asylum shopping’. That is why, and I wish to repeat this and make it very clear to your rapporteur, the Commission has a great deal of sympathy for the general approach that emerges from the draft legislative resolution. However, it will not be possible for the Commission to adopt some of the suggestions made in that resolution which would undermine the achievement of these dual aims, and which would ultimately undermine the adoption of a text which we all wholeheartedly wish to see. For example, the distinction between the normal procedure and the accelerated procedure, which is actually practised, in theory at least, in the Member States is a cornerstone of this. If we were to accept the amendments seeking to eliminate this, this would involve seriously compromising the chances of getting the proposal adopted. On the other hand, Mr Watson, the Commission is certainly ready to take into account either the spirit or the letter of certain amendments that aim to improve the applicant’s protection without undermining the fundamental distinction, which I mentioned earlier. By the same token, the Commission shares the concerns reflected in various amendments which seek to further improve the quality of decisions made, whilst enhancing the situation of applicants and aiming to improve the efficiency of the national authorities which implement the procedures. Nevertheless, the legislative route is not necessarily the best way of achieving such an objective, which in many cases may be done by improving and approximating administrative practices. It is more likely that these standards will be achieved by implementing other means of cooperation, such as the open cooperation method which the Commission will in coming weeks be proposing should be extended to asylum matters.
Furthermore, certain of the amendments would fit better into your resolutions on the communitarisation of the Dublin Convention and on the definition of refugees to which I drew your attention just now. Other proposals will have to be taken into consideration. The Commission is accordingly in favour of strengthening the connection between this directive and international or European human rights instruments. In particular, compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union needs to be clearly stated and guaranteed. Similarly, it is important to be aware of the effect of adopting a text of this kind in the context of enlargement, and of its impact as regards updating the international protection agenda. I have in mind in particular the global consultation process launched by the United Nations High Commissioner’s Office for Refugees on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Convention.
Lastly, the Commission does of course agree with your desire to see a more systematic follow-up to the implementation of this directive. A measure of this kind is indeed vital to support and speed up the changeover to the common procedure decided upon at Tampere as the ultimate objective for the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples