Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 26 October 2011 - Strasbourg

16. Qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted (recast) (COM(2009)0551 – C7-0250/2009 – 2009/0164(COD)) (A7-0271/2011).

  Jean Lambert, rapporteur. − Madam President, I would like to start by thanking all the shadows on this report, the staff members from the three institutions – not least my own office – the Presidencies concerned and the Commission for their interest, effort and commitment over the time we have been negotiating the revision of this directive. I would also like to thank the experts who have supported us.

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. At EU level, it is this directive which sets out the standards for qualification for international protection: for those classic refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution – such as many of those who dared to oppose Colonel Gadaffi and thus qualified for refugee status; and for those at risk of serious harm – perhaps a teenage girl facing the death penalty in Iran for having sexual intercourse outside marriage, who could then perhaps qualify for subsidiary protection.

As well as setting out such criteria, the directive deals with the content of such protection, such as access to healthcare or education. The revision of the directive is limited; it is a recast. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs would like to have dealt with such issues as ‘actors of protection’, where the majority of us believe this should only be the state. That is why we have cited Article 7 as one we think should be looked at in the next review, as should the definition of ‘family members’.

I also wish to put on record my own concern at the lack of change in Article 10(1)(d), where the cumulative definition of a social group was maintained by the Commission rather than being offered as an alternative. I trust, at least, that the ten Member States operating in the optional perspective will continue to do so.

However, some progress has been made. The definition of a social group which could suffer persecution must now include due consideration of gender-related aspects. We have also included a reference to legal tradition and customs in Recital 30. We also include sexual orientation and, for the first time, gender identity. We should not expect people to deny their identity throughout their lifetime in the hope that this will make them safe from persecution.

As concerns children – the topic of the last debate – Recital 18 lays down some principles, though not an exhaustive list, to help in determining the best interests of the child. This principle is also linked to entitlement to benefits. In Article 31 we have sought to improve the tracing of family for unaccompanied minors, across the asylum process.

With regard to the content of protection, we have tried to ensure the same treatment for all beneficiaries of international protection and have achieved this in many areas, notably in terms of recognition of qualifications and access to employment. People want to contribute to the country that is providing protection.

However, a few Member States have insisted on being able to maintain certain differences between the two groups. This seems to be based on the misapprehension that those at risk of serious harm will need protection for a shorter period of time than those at risk of serious persecution. Our fight – maybe I should say our debate – over the length of residence permits yielded a small victory. However, we would invite the Member States most concerned in relation to difference of treatment to reflect as to whether an annual consideration of status is a good use of public money, and whether it reduces administrative burdens or provides a better context for integration than a period of at least three years. After all, there is a possibility of using cessation provisions if a need for protection changes.

To conclude, this revised directive takes small, but important, steps towards a common European asylum policy, but the system is only as common as the consistent high quality of its implementation across all participating Member States. We hope that movement on this directive will help provide impetus for the remaining measures and show that progress is possible.

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ TŐKÉS
Vice-President

  Piotr Stachańczyk, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like, first of all, very briefly to thank Parliament for its constructive cooperation in working out a compromise over correlation tables, which has also made possible adoption of the agreed text of the qualification directive. This is the first legal act of the second phase in the creation of the common European asylum system, and in our opinion its adoption is of enormous significance for establishing a good atmosphere in further work on the asylum package.

I would also like here to express my very sincere thanks to Ms Lambert, the rapporteur for the directive, for the huge amount of hard work she has put into the document. Finally, I would like to pledge that the Polish Presidency will do everything possible to facilitate the negotiations on the remaining acts of the asylum package. We want to move work forward on these documents as far as possible and help our partners in the Trio so that there will not be any problems with achieving our common objective of completing work on the asylum system by the end of 2012.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, may I begin by thanking the House and, particularly, Ms Lambert. I know you have done a huge job, together with your group, in the informal asylum package working group to achieve this. Thank you for your commitment and your relentless efforts to bring this file to a conclusion.

The qualification directive is, of course, a key component of the asylum system. It represents a major step towards achieving higher standards of protection and a more level playing field, and it also provides greater efficiency and coherence. By voting for this tomorrow, this House will send a very strong signal that the European Parliament is committed to moving forward and achieving a good result for the whole asylum package.

I am going to Luxembourg tonight, together with the Polish Presidency, and will be able to convey that message to the Council of Ministers of the Interior tomorrow.

The compromise on the table is balanced, and I think it meets many of our concerns. We welcome, in particular, the criteria for qualification, notably the notions of ‘actors of protection’ and ‘internal protection’. The compromise also addresses the common objective of ensuring the strengthening of gender-related provisions. It fully respects European case law and addresses adequately the issues of potential misuse and adequate standards of protection.

The Commission would have liked to go further as regards the definition of family members, but we regard this as a step forward. The definition extends to parents or other adults responsible for unmarried minors who are beneficiaries of protection. We also welcome the strengthening of the obligation to take into account the best interests of the child, as well as the progress achieved on the approximation of the rights granted to refugees, and to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, in respect of access to employment and to healthcare. It will ensure a higher level of legal certainty for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, and will facilitate their integration into society.

As regards social welfare and residence permits, I regret that the compromise retains the possibility of differentiating between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. We share that regret. Nevertheless, the deal on residence permits is a step forward because it will be possible to renew it for longer periods, if protection is still needed, than under the present rules.

The approximation of rights granted to beneficiaries of protection contributes to the streamlining of administrative procedures and will lead to a reduction in costs and the administrative burden of managing different protection strategies. This is clear from the positive experience of the Member States which already operate in this way.

A final agreement on the qualification directive would be a very positive sign symbolically, politically and legally. As you said, Ms Lambert, in a few weeks’ time it will be the 60th anniversary of the relevant Geneva Convention. It is a positive sign that we are committed to achieving the common European asylum system by 2012; I know that this is also the goal of the Polish Presidency and the incoming troika.

I hope that the achievement, and the vote tomorrow, will provide new momentum for the negotiations on the rest of the package. It will not be easy, but we are moving slowly but steadily forward. You can, as always, count on the Commission to do our utmost to facilitate and be helpful in this very important work, which is possibly the most important package of this legislative term for all of us in this field.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I congratulate Ms Lambert and the shadow rapporteurs on the impetus given to this report, without which there would have been no agreement with the Council.

How to go about deciding who qualifies as a family member was a key factor for my group. This needs to be defined properly to prevent abuse of the Community system for international protection.

The distinction between beneficiaries of asylum and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection is essential when agreeing on who has what rights. Subsidiary protection is more limited in time than asylum, the former status providing entitlement to a shorter residence permit (one year) and the latter to a longer residence permit (three years), although both cases can be reviewed if the threat to the beneficiaries remains.

The plan to remove the distinction between the two forms of protection was originally rejected by my group and by the Council, which is why we must now congratulate ourselves on the agreement reached with the rapporteur.

The need to recognise the rights that legitimately belong to those that are persecuted is consistent with measures to prevent fraudulent use of the European system for international protection.

We must also welcome the fact that the report sets out the need for Member States and their authorities to safeguard the best interests of minors and to extend protection to unaccompanied minors, paying particular attention to their safety, well-being and development, as well as the principle of family unity.

Lastly, Mr President, the inclusion of references to persecution by customs or traditions, resulting in genital mutilation, forced abortion or forced sterilisation is a remarkable and outstanding achievement.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SK) Mr President, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament sees the Commission proposal to recast the original directive from 2004 as part of the move towards a common European asylum policy by 2012. In the case of the original directive, the European Parliament had only an advisory role. Now, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament is in a position of codecision.

The existing directive includes two key elements. The first is the grounds on which someone qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection, and the second is the content of that protection in terms of residence, employment and social rights within the Member State responsible for protection.

A fundamental change proposed here is to approximate these two categories much more closely. The main objective is, on the one hand, to ensure that Member States apply common criteria for the identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection. On the other hand, the directive should ensure that a minimum level of benefits is available for these persons in all Member States. In order to enhance the effective exercise of the rights and benefits laid down in the directive by beneficiaries of international protection, it is necessary to take into account their specific needs and the particular integration challenges they are confronted with. Efforts should also be made to address problems relating to financial constraints. This restricts the access of these persons to educational opportunities and employment-related training, thereby reducing their chances of becoming an integral part of our democratic society. In conclusion, Commissioner, I would like to wish you success and to urge you to ignore the cries of the various demagogues who are against the asylum policy already, and possibly against the immigration policy as well. We will be keeping our fingers crossed for you.

  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, ever since 1999, the EU Member States have been talking about establishing a common European asylum system. The commitment to have this in place by 2012 has been made time and again. I regret the fact that, despite this, several of the asylum reports are stuck in the Council and the process is going extremely slowly. I welcome the fact that the Polish Presidency has now breathed new life into the negotiations and I hope that its good example will be followed by the forthcoming Danish Presidency.

It is very good that Parliament is now voting through the first of the asylum reports, concerning the Qualification Directive. I would like to say a big and heartfelt thank you to the rapporteur, Ms Lambert, who has done an impressive job on this report. It is my hope that the adoption of this directive will provide the necessary boost to the remaining negotiations on the reports that are still outstanding, for example on the Dublin II Regulation, for which I am rapporteur. I have high expectations of both the Polish and the Danish Presidencies.

There remains solidarity with those who flee and are forced to make their way to Europe and solidarity between our Member States when it comes to taking responsibility for those refugees who reach our continent. Solidarity is a linchpin and a platform on which we must build our cooperation.

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and our rapporteur Nadja Hirsch (who is unfortunately not well today) welcome the fact that a compromise has been reached between the institutions concerning the correlation tables. Parliament would like to include such a reference in order to oblige the Member States to demonstrate the implementation of all EU directives in their national systems. Even though we would like to establish clearer requirements for Member States to use these tables, we welcome the compromise that has been reached.

The adoption of the Qualification Directive will send a positive message concerning the future asylum package. It is very significant that, after our hard work, we are taking a big step forward by adopting this first directive. I would urge all of those involved to continue to work towards compromises so that we can keep to the timetable we have set ourselves and deliver a common system by 2012.

With that, I would like to thank Ms Lambert once again for her splendid work and wish all of us luck with the enormous amount of work that still remains to be done.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, Ms Malmström, Mr Stachańczyk, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group finds several significant and important things in the directive. For example, the emphasis given to the fact that it is the Member States which are responsible for the conduct of asylum policy, which means they should have the power to introduce or maintain more favourable provisions than the standards laid down in the directive. We see this as something which is reasonable and which should be stressed.

Another thing we think is significant and worthy of emphasis is the question of maintaining the principle of family unity. However, the ECR Group will abstain from voting on this directive, because we have certain doubts concerning the extension of the definition of family members and the fairly narrow grounds for refusing to grant refugee status. Our group is of the opinion that on questions of asylum and immigration, cooperation between the Member States and the European Union should be subject to coordination rather than compulsion. This is why we are going to abstain.

  Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, allow me, first of all, to thank Ms Lambert and congratulate her on taking this huge step, because we could say that Parliament has finally got its act together. We have confirmed here, once again, that we stand for a common asylum and migration policy throughout Europe and that we are, indeed, responsible for ensuring that that gets off the ground. Promises have been made; we have made a promise to each other that, in 2012, we will come up with a joint policy.

I am a little worried, however, that we might get stuck again in the Justice and Home Affairs Council next week. The European Parliament knows what it is doing, but I fear that the Member States will end up having a stand-up fight in the street over this. I am getting signs of this from the proposals currently tabled by Member States, which are designed to limit the amount of change effected in Dublin and to ultimately thwart an eventual solidarity clause, where countries which receive small numbers of refugees are required to help out countries which receive a lot of refugees.

No, we are looking into new short-term measures, into statistics, into how FRONTEX can be applied even more harshly to protect borders. Nobody is looking into how we might ensure that the European Union is a place where you can feel safe, where you can take refuge, and a place where you definitely know your reception will be coordinated.

What we have here is the Qualification Directive, which, in any case, draws a line as to who may be considered to be a refugee. We now have to wait for the Council’s response and for future directives in order to find out what assistance refugees can count on and how we can ensure that they are able to quickly build a new life in our community.

  Cornelis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, on behalf of my group, I would like to warmly congratulate Ms Jean Lambert on the results she has achieved. She has proved to be a star rapporteur. She has succeeded in including gender identity as specific grounds for persecution. That is extremely important for all transgender people, who are, unfortunately, often persecuted around the world simply because of what they are. The protection of children is now better regulated, as well, especially with regard to the tracing of parents of unaccompanied minors. It is unfortunate that, in the field of social security, we have not succeeded in establishing a uniform system for refugees and other people in need of internal protection, but we have, at least, made some progress here.

However, my group will abstain from the vote tomorrow. We fear that the adoption of the Qualification Directive might be the beginning of a customised approach and that, ultimately, we will fail to reach agreement on the reception and procedure standards and that, as Ms Sargentini has said, we will only go part of the way in dealing with the other issues.

I know that Ms Jean Lambert is aware of this and of which issues we are hesitant about, although she, herself, has come to a different conclusion. I hope that she will be proved right and we wrong, and that the adoption of this directive will not take anything away from the nature of the asylum proposals as a package. It is therefore of great importance that both Commissioner Malmström and the Polish Presidency confirm that, for them, this principle is still set in stone. I wish Commissioner Malmström every success in keeping this package as a unit.

  Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, I should like to take my turn in congratulating Ms Lambert, who has done an excellent job on one of the most serious problems facing Europe today.

However, I am very sceptical as to the efficacy of what we are debating. Reality is more tragic. My country, Greece, as the Commissioner knows full well, has become the main entry point for immigrants, especially from Arab Spring countries and, as a result, there has been a huge influx of immigrants into Greece.

Turkey is unable to guard its borders in terms of people leaving and it is impossible to guard the Greek borders to stop them coming in. These two facts are creating an explosive situation and, as a result, hundreds and thousands of immigrants are congregating in Greece and their presence is starting, I would say, to no longer befit a civilised state.

Commissioner Malmström, we need to revise the Dublin Regulation; because of the way in which it works, on the one hand, the poor refugees are being sent back to Greece and, on the other hand, the East keeps cramming them into Greece and, as a result, they are ‘stacking up’ in Greece. You need to find ways of helping now, so that, as decent human beings, we can cope with emerging needs.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, we should be under no illusion during the present discussions. For example, one should bear in mind that the European practice of focusing on child welfare when it comes to asylum petitions, drives many under-aged children from the developing world into the arms of people traffickers and thus into dangerous situations of dependency.

I do not believe that we should broaden the interpretation of the term ‘family’. If handled too loosely, this would result in a tidal wave of family members seeking to join those who have already successfully obtained asylum, reinforcing a form of illegal immigration.

There are already countless hoards of people throughout Europe who have crossed our borders illegally and who have no entitlement to asylum under the Geneva Convention. Their hope is that they will be legalised some time and huge numbers of lawyers in so-called asylum organisations are slowing down the hopeless cases. In Austria alone, 15% of all asylum cases have a positive outcome for the applicant. Clearly, some shady dealing then goes on at the expense of the other 85%. We should prevent this at all costs.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, in a statement made 61 years ago, EU founding father Robert Schuman said that, with increased resources, Europe could – as he said then – fulfil one of its essential tasks, namely the development of the African continent.

I mention this particular statement because today, unfortunately, we have not fulfilled this historic obligation either towards Africa or towards other less developed countries plagued by constant outbreaks of violence and conflict, which is where the refugees come from.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees noted in his most recent report that there had been a 17% increase in the number of asylum applications in the developed countries in the second half of this year alone. Therefore, Europe has a big responsibility and specific resources are needed, as Robert Schuman said at the time, so that we can respond to these needs. We need specific political instruments at our disposal for this purpose.

The agreement in principle with the Council on the directive we are debating today, to safeguard minimum requirements for the recognition of beneficiaries of international protection is, of course, a balanced, positive and encouraging directive and, as such, the rapporteur certainly deserves congratulations for her supreme efforts. I too would remind the House, as Mr Díaz de Mera said earlier, that our group did not vote in favour of the report in the first stage in committee; now, however, we too are in the fortunate position of being able to vote in favour of it.

However, from now on, if we are to be able to bring about the desired results, if we are to be able to provide protection to our fellow men and to implement the vision of the founding fathers of the Union, we need high-level application, as we heard earlier, solidarity, fair burden-sharing and an integrated asylum package, which we trust will be ready by 2012.

That is the only way we shall be able to respond to real needs; that is the only way – I repeat, with solidarity and burden-sharing – that we shall be able to deal with the serious problems which my country, Greece, as Ms Tzavela said earlier, is currently facing.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, we have wanted to move forward with the approval of the asylum package for a long time, and the ‘Arab Spring’ and the wave of migration triggered by it have made this all the more urgent. The appropriate response would have been to speed up approval of the asylum package, but instead we responded badly, by restoring temporary border controls and restricting freedom of movement. Europe also scored poorly as regards solidarity. In the light of this, the report before us is particularly important.

We know that the debates on the draft report, both within Parliament and among the European institutions, have been difficult. If we are able to approve the eligibility criteria for international protection, this will be a major step forward for common European policy on asylum and migration, and it will help us to adhere to our values and principles, to protect those who would be subjected to persecution in their home country, and to safeguard the rights of those who seek our help as refugees.

Part of this protection involves fostering social integration through an integrated approach to issues concerning the treatment of aliens, education, social welfare, and employment. The directive provides a good basis for this.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that a step – a major step – has been taken towards the creation of a common asylum system in the European Union, and like my fellow Members, I hope that the adoption of this report will give a definite boost to the negotiations on the other topics of the asylum package that are still being held up.

Like most of my colleagues, I hope that Cecilia Malmström will summon a great deal of courage – something that she does not lack – in order to make progress with this set of measures, and at the same time I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to our rapporteur for the huge amount of work she has done.

As I said, a whole series of advances have been made. I shall emphasise just three of them. The first is the merging of the two types of status, that of refugee and that of beneficiary of subsidiary protection, even though I regret that some disparities still remain, especially regarding residence permits and access to social protection, but this harmonisation will come in due course.

The second notable advance – and all afternoon we have debated rights and child protection in other reports – is the very positive provisions concerning children, including the rights of unaccompanied minors and in particular the granting of international protection, since these minors are clearly often in a very vulnerable situation.

Finally, I am also pleased that the inclusion of gender identity and sexual orientation as grounds for persecution is a key element of the text.

In the face of world movements, of migratory flows, implementing the right to asylum is more urgent than ever. That is why we need a common European right to asylum as soon as possible, because the interests of these people, of asylum seekers, of stateless people, are at stake, of course, but, above all, so are the interests of the Member States. It is important to point this out at a time when we are seeing, in all the topics we are dealing with, withdrawal and selfishness, particularly in relation to those States at the external borders of the European Union, who are under immense pressure, as our Greek fellow Member has just explained so well.

Finally, in order to summarise my point, allow me to quote, at this late hour, the philosopher Kant: ‘The right of a foreigner [is] not to be treated with hostility because he has arrived on the land of another.’

  Takis Hatzigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, we welcome the report by Ms Lambert, not only because it improves the treatment both of beneficiaries of political asylum status and of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status, but mainly because it includes identical and equitable treatment of them in all the Member States.

Furthermore, beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status have more substantive privileges under the present report; over and above the humanitarian aspect of this issue, this will dissuade some of them from taking recourse to the political asylum procedure, even though they perhaps know that they have no right to political asylum.

However, I consider that it is very important to add that the Member States too should adopt a way of relieving the pressure on the southern states at the receiving end of immigration flows, namely Malta, Italy, Greece and Cyprus, by allowing these people to enter from one Member State to another, under specific circumstances, in the ultimate objective of facilitating social integration.

To close, it would be better, of course, if the Commission tabled the entire asylum package at once, because, apart from the delays, its approval in fits and starts is giving rise to doubts as to the intention of applying the requirements for political asylum seekers.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Jean Lambert, on the huge amount of work she has done, despite some fairly difficult discussions on this subject with the Council, and I would also like to wish Ms Malmström luck for the next stage. We will all need it.

Like others before me, I also wish to raise two points among those that I believe are of particular interest and are a step in the right direction, concerning the outcome of this directive. They are the definition of family members, of course, which now includes the parents of married minors, and also the introduction of the notions of gender identity and sexual orientation as recognised grounds for persecution.

In my view, the various advances made in this text are important for the remaining negotiations on the asylum package, if we are to ensure that the text of the package is truly consistent, as it deserves to be. We should in fact use these elements of the Qualification Directive as valid precedents for the directives on procedures and on reception conditions, and even for the Dublin II Regulation.

I know that this approach is not necessarily shared by some Member States within the Council. In truth, however, what are our objectives? Do we wish to establish common standards, or do we want to carry on juxtaposing national systems, the shortcomings and inequalities of which we see every day, and which serve only to perpetuate a system of asylum lottery? Do we wish to carry on seeing Court rulings for failure to respect international conventions and not do anything about it? The answer is most certainly ‘No’.

Our aim is to complete the common asylum system in 2012. This does not mean that we should settle for the lowest common denominator. We should not move forward just for the sake of it. Furthermore, the cost argument, which is still regularly heard during our discussions, is not a valid one, even in these times of budgetary cuts. Cost rationalisation, as is sometimes practised by certain Member States, is nothing but a short-term approach that will not succeed in solving the structural problems of the European asylum system.

At present, there is a tendency to mistrust and reject those who enter European territory. To combat this mistrust, clear and shared rules must be laid down. This is what the reform of the asylum package is all about. Concluding it in accordance with harmonised standards would evidently be to the Union’s credit.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I too would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur. The problems caused by the recent migration flows from the southern Mediterranean were wrongly perceived as some internal weaknesses inherent in the Schengen area. In actual fact, they demonstrate, first and foremost, that the European Union has a problem with the external management of emigration in general and with the asylum system in particular. I believe that once we resolve the problems arising from the refugee management system, the pressures at the Schengen area’s internal borders will also disappear, as the secondary movements of asylum seekers will be curbed.

The reform of the Qualification Directive for international protection is of paramount importance. However, we need to bear in mind that the whole asylum package has to be adopted as soon as possible.

The element which needs to be radically improved is solidarity between Member States with regard to refugee management. Unfortunately, however, we sadly note that it is precisely this solidarity that the EU has been lacking of late. Right-wing and far-right governments need to abandon their populist and xenophobic attitudes which they have shown recently, not only towards immigrants, but towards some European citizens as well. This directive will not have any real impact as long as some governments continue to promote nationalist policies.

I think that it is time for the European Union to prove that it can revive the spirit of solidarity for the benefit of both its own citizens and those who need its protection.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the much-respected Jean Lambert has completed a complex parliamentary report, her second in the year of the ‘Asylum Package’, which marks the path that should be followed to achieve a common European asylum system.

This report, in addition to raising its own questions, also touches on matters raised in other reports, such as my own report on reception conditions. If we want asylum seekers to be independent and not rely on handouts from the host State, access to employment is vital and should be recognised immediately after international protection is granted. In these times of economic crisis, humanity must and can be reconciled with the economy.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - (SK) Mr President, the topic we are debating here today is the qualifications and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as potential beneficiaries of international protection.

The asylum system is still imperfect, and we must improve it. I am very pleased that more thought is given in the new text to children and the protection of children, especially those that are unaccompanied, as they are the most vulnerable. They tend to be the most abused and, of course, and here I would like to make an appeal for us to ensure, in a sensible way, that those who are least protected do not end up in the hands of predators and persons involved in human trafficking and other forms of abuse.

I am very pleased that we often talk about unifying families. I would see it as our first priority to protect natural families and to unify natural families, but on the other hand I am in favour of an effective Frontex system and the protection of our territory.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the proposed changes to the directive on international protection aim to reduce current differences in the way that the status of refugees is recognised in individual EU Member States. The different national policies and perceptions of EU policies in the Member States, as well as the different experience of national institutions with the adaptation and integration of asylum seekers in their countries, have lead the Member States to try and implement the current Directive in the way they consider best, according to their own experience. I therefore understand how it was necessary to complete as many as six informal trialogues when preparing the submitted document. The Commission’s attempt to interfere in the tried and tested procedures of national institutions under the pretext of greater unification of the asylum system may understandably provoke disagreement, particularly from experienced officials, since certain concepts are defined in a way that is fundamentally different to the definitions formerly in use.

In my opinion, the updating of the directive should proceed in a pragmatic and sensitive way, paying full regard to the views of the experienced national institutions that will be implementing our asylum policy on the ground. Only thus will we succeed in our task.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I too welcome the European Union’s involvement in the process of granting international protection according to the Geneva Convention. In this regard, a harmonised set of criteria need to be drawn up to apply this system.

I should stress that it is assumed that there is no effective protection available if the state or agents of the state are carrying out the persecution. At the same time, it is vital to establish a causal link among the reasons based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion and persecution. With regard to social assistance, the beneficiaries of this system must have access to a minimum set of rights, which are the same as those granted to citizens in the host state. Respect for equality among third-country nationals and citizens must be a priority for creating a common European asylum procedure by 2012.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I share your hope that we will be able to agree a common European asylum system that will offer rapid help to those who need it, while also preventing abuse. I am convinced that this Qualification Directive represents a major step forwards. I believe that it is particularly important that we have succeeded in producing a narrow definition of the term family, thus preventing abuse. In the context of subsidiary protection, I consider it a good thing that internal security is to be prioritised, namely when the prospect of effective protection exists in part of the country of origin. I also believe it significant that, in order to speed up procedures, reasons should be agreed for when subsidiary protection will be provided and when not. Thus, for example, it is made clear that subsidiary protection is not to be afforded if the asylum seeker is guilty of a serious crime.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, today someone who is seeking protection in the European Union can be subject to quite a cruel lottery because conditions vary a lot between the Member States. They vary in terms of the procedures, the administration, the rights he or she has, the length of the procedures, whether he or she is considered to be entitled to protection or not, and what he or she can do in the meantime while waiting for the authorities to make a decision.

This is of course not acceptable, because we are all in the same European Union with the same values and standards and laws, and we have all signed up to international conventions such as the Geneva Convention. It is not only us here who think that this is not an acceptable situation. Member States and their heads of states have in their absolute wisdom realised this. That is why they have called for us to set in place, by 2012, a common European asylum system, so that we will have harmonised systems so that every person is treated more or less in the same way. We have heard all about a common European asylum system before, but this time it is really time to put it into action. 2012 is tomorrow.

We need a system with high standards, with harmonised procedures, we need these to be transparent and predictable, and we need special provisions for the most vulnerable. We need quick procedures. If a person can stay he or she can then quickly move into his new society and integrate. If he or she cannot stay, then he or she will have to be sent back under dignified conditions.

Today, 10 countries of the European Union receive 90% of the asylum seekers. That means that 17 countries could do more if the administration and systems were there. Then we would more equally share the responsibility and we would also be able to give more protection to those who are really in need.

This is important, and that is why the vote tomorrow and the report that we are discussing today is so important. It is an important milestone towards this goal, so let us work together – all the institutions, all of you – to achieve this and to move forward not only on this but also on the other reports.

  Piotr Stachańczyk, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, in response to certain doubts which have been expressed in the debate today, I would like to say that we are aware we are dealing with only – or as much as – the completion of a certain phase. The Polish Presidency is very well aware of how much work remains to be done. A common European asylum system is one of the basic priorities of our Presidency, and I can assure you that from the outset of the Presidency we have also been trying to speed up work on the other documents which are part of the asylum package. We are absolutely certain that it is still possible to finish the work by the deadline which has been set of the end of 2012. We in the Presidency will do everything possible to achieve this.

  Jean Lambert, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank all who have participated in the debate today. It is true that we have difficulties with our asylum system; we know that the results can be very different from country to country, and we are also aware that this one step forward is not going to solve all the problems – although we know that it will give greater clarity in certain areas and hopefully provide a stronger base for Member States to build on the good practice which exists in some and to share that with the others.

We have heard a number of regrets. Well, we all have a few but, then again, maybe not too few to mention on this occasion. Certainly in terms of the correlation tables: yes, we would like to have seen those. We would have liked to see Member States being very clear about their implementation but, on the other hand, what I think we are more interested at this point is actually moving forward in terms of the content and the common asylum system.

I think it says a lot that the rapporteurs from the other asylum dossiers have all been present tonight at this debate, and many have spoken. The willingness of Parliament to move forward is extremely clear, because this is a team effort. I thank people for their warm words, but this is a team effort and involves compromise and solidarity amongst us in Parliament to try and move things in Council.

As we have heard, we hope that the movement on this directive – and I hope that groups will be voting in favour of it tomorrow (and maybe one or two groups might like to reconsider their abstentions) – will help provide impetus for the remaining measures and show that progress is possible, and that quality and consistency build confidence among the Member States and the public and deliver sound humanitarian protection for those in need. I think that is what we need to have at the front of our minds when we are looking at this asylum package.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 27 October 2011.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I should like to congratulate Ms Lambert on an important job extremely well done. The review of the original Directive 2004/83/EC forms part of the procedure to achieve a common policy on asylum by 2012. In her proposal, the rapporteur shows due respect for national legislation, gender equality and the protection of minors and calls for protection based on enhanced criteria. We need to be especially careful when it comes to defining who is entitled to subsidiary protection and who enjoys special protection. We need to ensure that these rights are not abused. Burden-sharing in immigration is a necessity. Immigration is a difficult issue to resolve; however, we can manage it if we take the right action. In light, in particular, of developments in North Africa and the Arab world, we must find a European strategy to address the problem of immigration, so as not to leave the Member States to their fate and, at the same time, to ensure that the unfortunate people forced to migrate and the citizens of Europe bearing the burden are not taken advantage of. We need to demonstrate solidarity to refugees as well as between Member States. I trust that the adoption of this directive will help us to move forward, towards a review of Dublin II, which I believe is a necessity.