| Author (Person) | Cronin, David |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.8, 2.3.06 |
| Publication Date | 02/03/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By David Cronin Date: 02/03/06 The European Parliament is seeking guarantees that EU governments will not be able to use a new fund for managing migration to deport victims of torture or rape. Last year, the European Commission put forward proposals for a scheme to finance the removal from EU territory of foreigners who have not been granted permission to remain in the EU. The Commission proposed that the European Return Fund be allocated EUR 759 million for the 2007-13 period. A draft report on the fund by the civil liberties committee of the Parliament suggests changing the guidelines for its use. Whereas the Commission’s proposal states that the situation of "vulnerable persons" should be taken into account, MEPs are advocating an explicit guarantee that children, disabled people, victims of rape or torture and people in need of medical treatment will not be expelled. "European money should not be used to finance the return of vulnerable people who are protected under international law," said Polish Conservative deputy Barbara Kudrycka, who is drafting the Parliament’s report. She wants the fund to be linked to the implementation of a planned EU law introducing common standards for expelling unauthorised residents. Published by the Commission in September, this proposal suggests that those expelled would be banned from re-entering EU territory for up to five years - or longer in cases of a threat to public safety. It also says that rules should be laid down on the use of force during expulsions. The latter has been a controversial matter in several EU states over the past decade. In Belgium a minister had to resign in 1998 when a 20-year-old Nigerian, Semira Adamu, died after being suffocated by police escorting her on to a plane. The Austrian presidency of the EU has scheduled a debate on the proposal at the June meeting of justice and interior ministers. But diplomats say that the proposal has met strong opposition from some governments. Germany, in particular, is questioning the need for such a directive, given that EU countries have already signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK, Denmark and Ireland have decided not to opt in to the directive under provisions applying to those three states in the Amsterdam treaty and the Schengen accord on border management. Diederik Kramers, spokesman in Brussels for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees said it was logical that the return fund should be linked to a clear policy. But he argued that the final directive should have a "clearer affirmation of human rights standards" than the Commission’s proposal. Richard Williams from the European Council on Refugees and Exile, an alliance of groups working with asylum-seekers, welcomed the MEPs’ calls for stricter safeguards. He said it was "sensible" to link the return fund to the directive, but argued that the human rights provisions need to be strengthened. Article reports that the European Parliament was seeking guarantees that EU governments would not be able to use the European Return Fund for managing migration to deport victims of torture or rape. A draft report on the fund by the Civil Liberties Committee of the Parliament suggested changing the guidelines for its use. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Justice and Home Affairs |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
