Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-346"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000614.13.3-346"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, I would firstly like to acknowledge Mr Schulz. I would like to say to you, Mr Schulz, from the bottom of my heart, something which I would like somebody one day to say about me: you have been a good adversary, that is to say, a hard adversary, always frank, forceful, often discomforting and there is no doubt that we will miss you.
Mr President, allow me now to come to the point and say that this seems to me to be an important Commission document because it genuinely launches a debate which many previous documents pointed to, in particular the Tampere conclusions, but the content of which needed to be clarified. There is, without doubt, a great need to clarify the existing differences between the asylum procedure, reception conditions, the interpretation of the definition of a refugee, the links between that asylum procedure and the ‘Dublin mechanism’ procedures and other forms of protection and, in this respect, this document perfectly focuses the debate. I am not going to mention all of the points highlighted by the other speakers, but I would like to insist on two points in particular.
Firstly, I believe that the Commission correctly relates the issues concerning asylum procedures, the object of a future directive, to the Dublin Convention procedure and the notion of a safe third country. I must say in this regard that I have put forward an amendment which is against the system of lists. It is problem of method. Fiji was a secure country until a few days ago, and overnight it ceased to be one. If we employ a system of closed lists, difficulties will arise in terms of keeping the lists up to date, which would cause enormous harm.
The other amendment which I have signed concerns the distribution of burdens. We are all aware that the principle of solidarity requires a distribution of the consequences stemming from the current asymmetry in requests for asylum. Firstly, we must say that if we achieve harmonised asylum procedures, the level of requests will also tend to become more homogenised. Secondly, I would like to say that this report has one virtue which I would like to highlight amongst others – although I have been critical on some points – and that is that it very much insists on legal certainty, on judicial safeguards, on the asylum seeker’s right to defence and, in particular, on everything contained in point 4 and, of course, on everything relating to legal assistance, with the possibility of making contact with NGOs and the UNHCR.
Evidently, this fits in very badly with the measures on distribution by quotas which have an image which is closely connected to deportation. Therefore, Mr President, I hope that certain groups, and in particular the PPE Group, will reconsider this amendment, which takes up the amendment of the Group of the Greens precisely. In other words, it is not an amendment of a conservative or any other origin, nor of any particular geographical origin. It takes up an amendment of the Group of the Greens which was not approved in committee and I believe it should receive the support of the House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples