Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-338"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000614.13.3-338"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Amsterdam has at last paved the way for joint action in the area of asylum law and refugee and immigration policy. In my view, this was long overdue, because the decision to move from a purely economic community to political union was taken a long time ago. That the Treaty of Amsterdam moved in this direction was therefore all the more important. Unfortunately, when it happened, Parliament was only granted the right to be consulted on moves in the relevant legal areas, which is why I expressly state here that I trust that the Commission will continue to ensure that Parliament remains fully involved, despite the fact that it only has a right of consultation.
I know that asylum law is a difficult and politically sensitive issue but I think that we have made a start in the discussions in committee over recent months. We have discussed extremely constructively and fairly with each other. This discussion has encouraged me and I am convinced that Parliament is now in a position to give its joint support to the continuing legislative process and, possibly, to discuss other difficult issues, such as an immigration law, constructively.
Having said which, one thing must be made clear: given that, officially, we only have the right to be consulted, we shall only have any effective influence on the Commission and on how the relevant legal provisions develop if we, as a Parliament, agree on common principles and waive the need for full implementation of individual political goals.
I think that we have chosen a good approach to this issue over recent months during our discussions of the Commission’s working paper. I know from my own group, I must add, that, because of how the report is drafted, the view of hardly anyone here in the House is wholly represented. That is precisely what happens when you make compromises and try to find a consensus. You are satisfied on many points, but not always 100%.
Allow me to highlight the main points which I think are important for future asylum procedures.
First: we must summon up the courage to separate the three main groups, i.e. asylum, on the one hand, and the temporary admission of refugees from crisis regions and immigration policy, on the other.
Secondly: we must ensure that qualification procedures are shortened and simplified, without sacrificing sufficiently high standards of careful examination.
Thirdly: our aim must be to allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum just once within the European Union. However, this means ensuring the same procedural law applies everywhere and is applied uniformly. This means training officials in charge of processing applications to a high standard. These officials must have access to cross-border information. And we must also ensure that asylum seekers are treated in exactly the same way, wherever they make their application. This includes welfare, accommodation etc. We need to guarantee that, in theory, you will face the same procedure everywhere, irrespective of whether you make your application in Spain, Germany or England. If we can guarantee that, then inversely, it is only logical to rule that just one application is allowed.
Fourthly: I think that the Member States of the EU should be required to draw up a uniform, binding list of countries subject to a visa requirement and safe third countries and countries of origin. I know that some people are critical of this. But, in my view, it is the only way to ensure that officials take decisions on the basis of the same criteria and to create legal certainty for applicants in the Member States.
One important point which I should like to address, and which we have made clear several times in the report, is that the burden must be divided between the Member States. How exactly this burden will be divided obviously still needs to be discussed. But one thing is clear: the door on which the majority of asylum seekers or refugees knocks cannot be left to chance. One country alone should not have to bear the burden."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples