Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021021.7.1-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, as we have just heard the proposed directive is effectively the linchpin of the common asylum policy, setting out the basis for minimum standards for people qualifying as refugees under the Geneva Convention and subsequent protocols, and also the criteria for people entitled to international protection under other international conventions and human rights legislation. I personally regret the decision to apply this directive only to third-country nationals and stateless persons, thus removing the EU Member States from its scope, and I shall be voting for the amendments by the GUE/NGL Group to that effect.
We also agreed to uphold the effective right of conscientious objection on the grounds of religion or belief – a right internationally acknowledged.
In conclusion, I should like to thank all my colleagues for their serious work and commitment on this report, whether we agreed or not. The committee has made positive amendments to the Commission's already sound proposals and I trust this position will be maintained in the vote tomorrow and supported by the Council. A positive position there will be a strong assertion of Treaty obligations and the humanitarian response of the European Union.
However, the basis of the Commission's perspective is the need for protection and our responsibility to provide it. The majority of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs supported the Commission in upholding the 1951 Geneva Convention, which does not differentiate between different actors of persecution, and welcomed the move away from the narrow view held by some governments and parties that only state persecution creates official refugees. Full application of the Convention would take account of, for example, those suffering at the hands of the FARC, a non-state agent of persecution in Colombia, and would also cover political opposition in Zimbabwe and countless other instances.
We disagreed with the Commission, however, on the point of protection being afforded by a state-like agency, such as the UNHCR, and felt that this effectively imposed the duties of a state on a body that could not be held legally accountable.
The majority of the committee chose to support amendments by the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities, which strengthen the position of women as a social group liable to persecution in some countries, and have included the example of genital mutilation in line with a previous Parliament decision on the issue.
We also took the view that sex and sexual orientation should be taken into account when looking at the definition of a social group. This has been emphasised by the Union under the Copenhagen criteria and the Treaty of Amsterdam. We are well aware of recent cases of persecution in, for example, Egypt and Jamaica.
The majority of the committee does not support the view that this directive should deal only with refugee status and that subsidiary protection could be dealt with at a later stage. We agreed with the Commission and the UNHCR that it was appropriate to deal with the two categories together and not just for administrative reasons. The complementary systems consider first of all whether a person needs protection. If they do, then their status needs to be defined. Even a full application of the Geneva Convention does not meet all protection needs and that is why many Member States have additional categories.
It is not true to say, as some do, that those in the additional category necessarily stay for shorter periods or face less serious problems in their country of origin. If we are to have a common asylum policy, we have also to deal with these additional needs and it makes sense to deal with them together. We need a holistic approach that meets our international obligations and the needs of those we aim to protect.
Because we see the two groups as complementary, the committee majority chose to accord similar social rights to the two groups. It must be sensible to allow those who wish to work, train or acquire an education to do so. It benefits the individuals, our society and their country of origin on return and, by meeting basic social needs, we can avoid larger social costs. The EU's own social inclusion strategy recognises the links, for example, between poor housing, poor health and poor educational attainment. If this applies to our own nationals, it seems only reasonable for those entitled to international protection to benefit from an equivalent entitlement if we are to avoid creating social exclusion, contrary to our own EU policy.
Our committee also agreed by a majority to a definition of family that aims to maintain the principle of family unity and to embrace a wide definition of family. That is a familiar argument in this House. It seemed sensible to accord similar status to all family members, if only to avoid the bizarre situations which sometimes occur when one family member can be accorded refugee status and another, on the same information, is denied it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples