Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-326"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.38.3-326"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the objective of the legislative proposals on which you have just given your verdict is the establishment of a truly common asylum system that affords greater protection, is more effective and is more united.
I will turn now to the support office. Thank you, Mrs Dührkop Dührkop and Mrs Lambert, for your remarkable, quick and effective work, since the Commission only tabled its proposals on 18 February. In this case, I really need Parliament’s support to implement the office quickly, and I note with satisfaction that the proposal for the amendment on the European Refugee Fund is endorsed.
Some aspects of the support office issue should be commented on. The question of solidarity is evidently at the heart of Parliament’s concerns, as it is of mine. I note the draft amendment calling for the office to support the implementation of a compulsory mechanism to distribute those receiving international protection. The Commission’s proposal reflects the text of the Pact on Immigration and Asylum, providing for a voluntary system.
However, as I said just now in a previous reply, whilst the Commission is working on a more coordinated mechanism, the solution will not be easy. The office, meanwhile, will support the internal redistribution mechanisms as they are defined, whatever they are like. The regulation to establish the office is not the right place to legislate on the founding principles of these mechanisms but, once more, as with the Dublin Regulation, the Commission will accept an amendment in the preamble.
The Commission, moreover, believes that the office’s external mandate should not be limited to resettlement activities and regional protection programmes. Amendments restricting the support office’s mandate must be avoided. There are amendments with the aim of radically changing the procedure for appointing the director of the future office. Beware! The procedure proposed by these amendments could considerably delay the director’s appointment. We do indeed need this office to be established quickly and effectively. The formula the Commission is proposing is the horizontal formula currently used for 20 regulatory agencies coming under the first pillar. We would find it regrettable to depart from a harmonised formula when horizontal discussion is conducted within the interinstitutional group on agencies, in which Parliament participates.
I shall conclude. I have already taken up quite a lot of time, but the work of Parliament is such that I wish to provide a detailed response. Some have criticised the proposals on Dublin and on reception conditions for being too generous. Some say: ‘Yes, but this Europe of asylum will be a beacon for unfounded asylum requests.’ Others, obviously, have invoked the principle of subsidiarity. Frankly, I do not share these criticisms. Only the true harmonisation of European asylum provisions around clear standards promoting fairness and effectiveness will enable Europe to put into practice its desire to protect those who actually need such protection, while avoiding abuses encouraged by ambiguous, unevenly applied standards. Experience shows that where Member States handle asylum requests in an objective, professional way, no beacon effect has been created, far from it. I believe there is no incompatibility between fighting against the abuse of procedures and raising the standards of protection.
To conclude, I would like to thank Parliament for its involvement as colegislator in the sensitive issue of asylum. I say this very simply but genuinely, even before the Presidency: we really need the European Parliament in order to gain acceptance for this asylum policy. It is a policy in line with our European values which, sometimes, in fact, can awaken fears and criticism, even though all this forms part of the humanitarian spirit and humanitarian tradition of our continent.
This is why, Mr President, I am extremely grateful to all the Members and especially to the five rapporteurs for their excellent work.
I heartily thank the five rapporteurs for their considerable and excellent work. This is the first time that Parliament has given its verdict, as colegislator, on asylum issues. It has to be said that a fruitful working relationship has just begun. I am pleased to see that Parliament largely supports the objectives in the Commission’s proposals. This support is essential if we are to overcome certain shortcomings in the legislative instruments from the first phase. At the time, they were adopted merely after consultation of Parliament.
I would, however, like to comment on some of the proposed amendments, which are giving some cause for concern and are worthy of particular attention. I will first turn to Mr Popa. As regards Eurodac, I broadly agree with his proposals. Now let me turn to Mr Masip Hidalgo and talk about access to reception conditions. I will accept an amendment on the sensitive issue of the equivalence of the material support offered to asylum seekers and the minimum social assistance guaranteed to national citizens.
For the Commission, however, there must be a reference indicator. This indicator will not oblige the Member States to provide social assistance to asylum seekers, but it will allow the introduction of clear rules in order to maintain asylum seekers’ dignity and to help us, and consequently the Commission, to monitor the application of the common standards in each Member State.
The same is true for the principle of equality with national citizens as regards access to health care for people with specific needs. Here too, I can accept the amendment, but I would also like to see a reference indicator retained, as the Commission’s proposal aims to overcome the current shortcomings in relation to protecting the health of vulnerable persons. That is all for the reception conditions. I thank Mr Masip Hidalgo once again for his excellent presentation.
I turn now to the Dublin Regulation. I am also grateful to Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert for giving us a very good presentation of her report on the revision of the Dublin Regulation. I wish to stress an issue that is of major importance for me: family reunification and the problem of unaccompanied minors. The Dublin system has often been criticised for the negative impact that it may have on asylum seekers, especially in the case of families or vulnerable persons.
In its proposal, the Commission wanted to ensure that, in practice, families are not separated and that minors are not transferred, except to rejoin their families. The amendments that change this approach cannot receive our support. I wish to stress the question of solidarity, which is the subject of some of the amendments tabled in the framework of the Dublin Regulation.
I would firstly like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, and also Parliament for introducing the option of suspending the transfers of asylum seekers when a Member State encounters difficulties. However, it is difficult to go further in the framework of the Dublin Regulation, as this regulation, Mrs HennisPlasschaert, cannot be an instrument as such for the distribution of asylum seekers among Member States. I have indeed heard your call for solidarity, and the Commission can accept an amendment in the preamble to the regulation, in order to give a political signal along the lines of creating improved, formal solidarity mechanisms.
In fact, I am determined to propose, at a later date, concrete instruments to increase solidarity at European Union level and to relieve the pressure on the asylum systems in some Member States. We need to arrive at a fairer distribution of the beneficiaries of international protection among Member States. The Union has already allowed the European Refugee Fund to support pilot projects in this area. Moreover, once it is operational, the support office will be able to give expert support to those Member States that request it. However, you have put your finger on the problem, namely the need for more solidarity and more consistency among the various Member States."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples