The Spaniard Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D) is the chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties and also rapporteur for one of the dossiers on the ‘Pact on Asylum and Migration’, the instrument for managing crises and cases of force majeure, which defines solidarity in exceptional situations. He presented his working approach to EUROPE and went back over the gaps that the Pact absolutely must fill. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
You are rapporteur on the instrument for crisis and force majeure situations. What will your main messages be?
I have started a series of constructive talks with the Commission, NGOs, and think tanks; I am also in contact with the Member States, and my aim is to present my report to the Civil Liberties Committee under the Portuguese Presidency.
Asylum and migration are more important issues than ever, and I have been working for years on Article 80 and the principles of mandatory solidarity.
The first relevant point is that we need very clear definitions of crisis and force majeure situations.
It so happens that, in the report for which I am responsible, the concept of solidarity is significant, and since the notion of mandatory solidarity is a pillar of the Pact, it is of the utmost importance to define all this with great care. The Regulation divides crisis management into a number of premises, with the notion of mass influxes, on a certain scale, over a certain period of time and in certain Member States whose reception capacities have been overwhelmed. Then there are related regulations, asylum procedures and pre-clearance procedures, which can be suspended in these specific cases, after a decision to respond to these extraordinary circumstances.
It will have to be seen whether the durations proposed in the regulation are realistic (return sponsorships to be completed in 4 months, as opposed to 8 months in times of pressure, processing times for border procedures extended by several weeks, editor’s note).
For the Commission, the crisis we experienced in 2015 was, in a way, a situation of ‘force majeure’. I myself tend to consider that this crisis was above all a crisis of the European will to stick to certain principles.
This crisis would have been manageable if there had been a willingness to act together. It spiralled out of control because countries with more vulnerable borders such as Cyprus, Italy and Greece, and then Spain were left by the wayside. The current crisis in the Canary Islands, which is experiencing a migratory peak, could also be manageable if we had the will.
Should there be a return to automatic relocation, including of people in an irregular situation? Can Parliament reintroduce it?
Asking for automaticity is not very realistic at the moment. But it’s one of the criticisms I make of the Commission and the Pact: that it has lowered its ambitions to the lowest common denominator between the Member States. The Commission has revised its standards instead of defending them to the Member States. This is the kind of leadership we would have expected. I know it is difficult, but we have to try, and Parliament will make every effort.
The southern EU countries, including Spain, where you come from, do not like the new pre-screening obligations at the borders and the new border procedures. The Council of the EU as a whole remains divided. Are we heading for another deadlock?
I cannot ignore the negative trends in the Council and the fact that mandatory solidarity has been denied. A balanced solution must be found, balanced but fair, and it must not end with a refusal of solidarity. The current situation is unfair because it puts everything on the shoulders of the frontline countries.
I can see the point of view of the countries of the South and I cannot imagine a response that is not of the highest EU standards. When these people arrive and are disembarked, they are survivors and they are arriving in the EU, on EU soil.
They don’t have to be gathered in some kind of external centre (the new procedural rules provide for quick procedures at the borders for some people with little chance of receiving asylum, who would not be considered as having entered EU territory, editor’s note) and I can understand that it is not possible to envisage building new infrastructures to comply with all the new pre-screening and procedural instructions - indefinitely - as long as these people are not returned. This is unacceptable.
There must be a fair solution for all Member States, not just those on the front line. Nobody wants to stay in the Canary Islands; they have come to the EU. The blockades at the Council have lasted far too long!
There is a lot of talk about Frontex and pushbacks, as well as problems in recruiting staff dedicated to migrants’ rights. Should the Agency’s boss, Fabrice Leggeri, leave?
I have had the opportunity to talk about Frontex on many occasions. The agency is facing a major growth crisis. It has gone from being an embryo to a giant. It has a budget of 5.6 billion euros, its first uniformed agents authorised to carry weapons. It will have major challenges to face and it must fulfil its mandate and be transparent.
However, none of the requirements seem to have been met. Hence all these investigations. The Civil Liberties Committee has just launched a working group. The S&D, my group, has called for the Agency and the Management Board to be accountable. We have proposed that this body should replace the Executive Director of Frontex, but only the Management Board can take this decision.
Frontex must exist, but it must fully comply with its obligations.