Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-176"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Eurodac2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000315.5.3-176"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-15-Speech-3-1772
lpv:speaker	lp:Baroness Sarah Ludford2
lpv:spoken text	"The purpose of the Dublin Convention and Eurodac is to allocate to a single Member State responsibility for examining an asylum application, and the justification for the proposed regulation is that there is a need to extend fingerprinting to certain categories of illegal immigrants on the grounds that a substantial number of them will have claimed asylum previously or intend to do so. The problem is that some have not and will not, so this means that the proposed regulation goes beyond the strict terms of Dublin by guessing at or anticipating the existence of an asylum application. Thus the Dublin Convention is, in the words of the UK House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, a shaky edifice on which to construct a system for taking and exchanging fingerprint data on those who have not yet made or may not make an asylum application. This is a legally uncertain basis for legislation and that makes me unhappy. There is also an absence of clarity in the definition of the illegal immigrants to whom the regulation will apply. Member States are required to fingerprint every third-country national over 14 who is apprehended the irregular crossing of their border – that is not very precise. Fingerprinting is a serious invasion of privacy and the compatibility of such requirements with the European Convention on Human Rights needs to be carefully weighed. I am not sure that this has really been done. There are also data protection worries, which is why Parliament wanted to extend the provisions on erasing data to include, for instance, those who obtain any kind of legal status to remain in a Member State even if not full refugee status. I am glad to see the amended proposal takes up Parliament's demand to erase the data when an individual has got a subsidiary or temporary form of protection, but could I enquire whether this would cover for example – in the system I know best – the UK's exceptional leave to remain? Finally, Mr President, whatever the justification for widening the Eurodac fingerprinting system to some categories of illegal immigrants, I am personally not convinced that this proposal is legally watertight. Are the Council and the Commission so convinced?"@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Liberal Democrat Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Ludford (ELDR )."1 "in connection with"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph