Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-321"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.38.3-321"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has visited centres for immigrants in various parts of Europe – as have you yourself, Madam President, with particular eagerness – and has observed hugely differing conditions and intolerable situations that must be put right.
Asylum seekers, however, are not comparable to illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers are fleeing situations of persecution; they are not attracted by economic factors, but are expelled by regimes that are opposed to freedom. We Spaniards are well aware of this, since so many of us, as Republican exiles, were taken in by Mexico, France and other countries.
When the Return Directive was debated, it was made very clear that that piece of legislation would not apply to the future legislation on the reception of asylum seekers; fellow Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats said the same thing. In my view it is vital for asylum seekers to be given information in a language that they understand. Restricting the provision of information to an asylum seeker to a language he understands
lowers the existing requirements and would not be acceptable, I believe, from a legal viewpoint or in terms of the interpretation of human rights. The right to be properly informed is fundamental, because it forms the basis of all other rights.
I have studied the financial cost of my proposal on material assistance. My proposal asks that assistance to asylum seekers should guarantee adequate living standards, providing them with sustenance and protecting their physical and mental health. To ask for less would be, in my view, to insult the dignity of asylum seekers.
My proposal clarifies the second ground for detention (Article 8(2)(b)), placing it within the framework of a preliminary interview in accordance with the guidelines for detention laid down by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I also propose, in Article 9(5)(1), an
review by the judicial authorities of the detention when there is a change of circumstances or fresh information becomes available, at the request of the asylum seeker or, as I was saying earlier, in the absence of that, automatically.
Oral Amendment 2 and Compromise Amendment 5, adopted in committee, raise the issue of establishing legal assistance only in so far as necessary, and free of charge, at the request of the asylum seeker. I am asking for split voting on these two points, to go back to legal assistance which is closer to being free of charge, as I believe to be right.
Finally, if the initial proposals for social benefits to immigrants are reduced, as other groups have achieved in the voting in committee, then I think it is necessary, even though we are currently in a period of crisis, to ensure effective access to the labour market. In this way, asylum seekers will gain independence, integrate into the host society and reduce the social expenditure allocated to them. I would also like to extend my warm thanks to Mr Barrot and his Commission for all the efforts he has made throughout the course of this directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"or may be presumed to understand"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples