Fabienne Keller (Renew Europe, France) is rapporteur to the European Parliament on the regulation on the new asylum procedure at the borders; this report will be ready around summer. She revisited the points that will prove to be the most delicate and the current controversy surrounding Frontex for EUROPE. (interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe - What are the main changes in the new regulation compared to the 2016 text?
Fabienne Keller - First of all, I would like to say that after the failed 2016 ‘Asylum Package’, the EU cannot miss its appointment with reform a second time; on this text, I want to see the journey of a person as a whole. The asylum procedure, like return, is part of a person’s journey. The new regulation aims to introduce accelerated procedures of 12 weeks for the asylum procedure at the border and 12 weeks for returns; it targets persons not eligible for protection. (To read the rules: https://bit.ly/3uAg5zO )
I think this is a good proposal. In the Canary Islands, which I visited last week, I saw that many people are coming from Morocco, Senegal and Mauritania; they already know that they will not be protected and are not even seeking asylum. This proposal moves toward greater clarity; it corresponds more closely to the reality of the people who arrive.
There will also be a specific procedure for unaccompanied minors (who are not covered by the border asylum procedure).
The new procedure at the border will target populations from non-Member States with asylum application recognition rates of less than 20%. This seems to me a bit limited. I think we need to go deeper into these criteria with a more refined appreciation.
And all this of course raises the question of EU support for first-entry countries, which will have to be comprehensive.
Southern EU countries have rightly expressed their fears that this new procedure, coupled with the regulation on migrant verification checks, will create an additional burden and oblige them to create new centres
In fact, if this procedure is properly applied, together with that of prior checks, and if the deadlines are accelerated, there will be fewer people; the number of people received could be halved.
It should not be forgotten either that in times of crisis and massive influx, a different regulation will apply, that of crisis management and cases of force majeure (brought by Juan López Aguilar - S&D, Spain - which provides for a series of derogations and a sharing of reception, editor’s note).
But I fully understand the questions from the countries of the South, because the reality that they are currently seeing is quite different. They are now managing reception on behalf of the whole Union, and it is in our interest for them to have confidence.
But the question of these centres is indeed central to the functioning of the various mechanisms. That of the detention of these people - closed or open centres? - will also arise. In the Canary Islands, I could see that they are young men most of the time; it is hard to imagine them locked up in closed spaces.
And they are economic migrants; they aren’t doing anything wrong, they are just coming for a better life.
The new procedure also creates a common asylum and return decision in case of rejection of the application for protection. The connection to the ‘Returns’ Directive, which has been managed by Tineke Strik (Greens/EFA) since 2019, is very tenuous. How can these returns be improved?
You cannot send back a person who is not recognised by their country of origin; that is why we need to have a dialogue. This discussion with countries of origin will be a central point of the Pact. We need to find a way to discuss, but without conditionality. We are talking to sovereign States; we can discuss the networks of smugglers, which are also an illicit activity for them, and this can probably be done at two levels, the national and the European.
I recently attended a meeting of the Council of European Regions and Municipalities with local elected representatives who are only asking for the rules to be applied. They said how difficult it is for them to deal with people who find themselves without status. We have to look things in the face and apply the rules, rigorously, but always humanely.
There are different sensitivities in the European Parliament on asylum and migration. Can blockages be expected in Parliament?
There is great mutual respect between us and a strong desire to move forward. We meet very regularly, but returns and the issue of detention are indeed the most difficult subjects between us, as is extraterritoriality (in an asylum procedure at the borders, the migrant is not considered as having already arrived on EU soil, editor’s note).
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, is in a crisis of confidence. How can this be explained?
There are indeed a lot of articles in the press. Frontex focuses on the operational, on action, sometimes in the face of the very complicated partner that is Turkey.
Frontex is very important because it is linked to the respect of Schengen. It is also a significant player in sea rescue.
The whole issue is to control allegations (of so-called ‘pushback’) and to have counter powers. And it is true that, on the issue of fundamental rights (the hiring of staff dedicated to these missions), Frontex is lagging behind. This is regrettable.
There’s nothing shocking about monitoring of the Agency’s activities. Our board of inquiry in Parliament may also ask for explanations and ask for things to be corrected, if problems are detected. For the time being, we have not seen any findings that call into question its activities.
Monitoring is a healthy process, and one should not risk destabilising an agency that is central to Schengen and to the implementation of migration policy.