Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-01-19-Speech-3-581-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110119.27.3-581-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, I would like to point out that I think one of the issues for this debate is the establishment of a common European asylum system by 2012, which will finally allow us to stop adding to the worst national practices on asylum.
Let us not lose sight of this, as it means we need to move towards greater harmonisation, based on common rules. Indeed, I believe that practical cooperation alone will not resolve the current discrepancies between the national asylum systems.
I would also like, if I may, to express my concern about the state of play regarding the common European asylum system, in view of the many hold-ups within the Council. The future of this complex undertaking is by no means clear. We only need to look at the Commission’s attempt to salvage the situation with its forthcoming proposal for recasting two directives.
Against this background, then, we need to talk about costs, since that is what our debate is focusing on today. What we are hearing is that firmer procedural guarantees will considerably increase the financial burden on Member States of examining asylum claims, which they will find even more difficult given the state of their budgets in the economic crisis.
However, I repeat, it is inefficient, shoddy procedures that are more costly for Member States. I believe that a front-loading approach, as advocated by the Commission in its recast proposal, in other words, improving the first-instance procedures, will allow us to make real economies of scale in the medium term.
Why? Because from the outset, these harmonised procedures will help the authorities to identify bogus applications more easily and will provide clearer guidelines for the grounds for decisions. This will allow the right decisions to be made and made more quickly, which will then reduce both the length of the procedure and the number of decisions appealed against and overturned by the courts, and will hence reduce the costs of detention and, ultimately, the overall costs.
Furthermore, if we want to talk about the issue of costs, why not also talk about the Dublin Eurodac system? Why have none of the Member States ventured to ask for a cost-effectiveness report on the application of this system? What we do know is that some appalling human consequences are not being matched by any evaluations backed by convincing evidence, both regarding actual transfers and regarding the prevention of secondary movements or multiple claims, even though these are the very reasons why the Dublin system was created. Let us talk about costs therefore since we must, but let us look at the system as a whole, including the costs of the Dublin system.
From my point of view as rapporteur on the Asylum Procedures Directive, I believe that the level of harmonisation as it stands is inadequate and is detrimental to the quality and efficiency of the process. These deficiencies take their toll both on Member States and on the victims of persecution. We are still aiming for 2012, but we must not feel we have to rush through a text based on lowest common denominators purely for the sake of sticking to deadlines. What we need are fair, accessible and effective procedures, and this will remain my goal and that of my political group in this debate in any event."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples