Tomas Tobé (EPP, Sweden) is chairman of the European Parliament’s Development Committee, but also rapporteur for the Committee on Civil Liberties on the Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management (RAM), the report that organises solidarity in times of migratory pressure and reviews some of the criteria of the so-called Dublin system that frames responsibilities in affairs relating to asylum. He gave EUROPE his first impressions of the regulation (http://bit.ly/3cGC7Jc ) and his expectations of the EU Council. He hopes to have a report ready by this summer, but many issues need to be clarified by then, including legal issues. He also awaits the simulations announced by the Commission to better assess the proposal. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe—The new Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management replaces the last blocked revision of the Dublin Regulation. The new text extends some of the Dublin criteria. Will this reduce the burden on the countries with the most applicants?
Tomas Tobé—I would not say that we’re seeing a profound change to Dublin regulation in the RAM. The countries that receive the most applications are currently the frontline countries, but also the secondary movement countries such as Germany or Sweden, and the planned expansion of the concept of ‘family’, for example, may instead lead to an increase in applications in these countries; the ‘burden’ will remain the same.
My initial assessment is that these changes will not relieve these Member States or encourage fair sharing of responsibilities. This proposal is supposed to deal with the problem of secondary movements, but I don’t think it will be enough either, if we don’t improve the reception conditions [of asylum seekers, editors’ note] everywhere in the Member States.
But in the end, the key will remain the implementation of the rules on the ground; today, we do not have this trust between Member States and we need a very operational regulation to make it work.
How do you intend to remedy this?
In general, the most important thing for us is that we need to lower the total increase when it comes to migration to Europe. For the majority of people seeking asylum in Europe, in the first instance their asylum request is rejected. And this creates pressure.
I think if we can have a regulation that will decrease irregular migrants, then we will have the opportunity to also find good solutions.
The current proposal does not sufficiently alleviate the respective burdens. A stronger mechanism is needed.
On solidarity, the Pact mentions annual plans for landings, solidarity forums, calculations on the basis of a distribution key... Isn’t this very complicated?
First of all, the rescue of people in distress at sea is a legal obligation. This is not part of the negotiations. My main concern is that we have too many boats that we certainly do not rescue. This is indeed a complex proposal and will be very difficult to implement.
Take one example: the Commission is supposed to assess the expected number of migrants and journeys in advance, but did the Commission foresee the sharp increase of arrivals that we are now seeing in the Canary Islands? I would say no. It will be very difficult to do.
Some countries are already saying that the option of return sponsorships, which is one of the solidarity responses, is not feasible in 8 months. The countries of the South would like to see more relocation.
It is not in my file, but I want to say that the preliminary screening at external borders is essential [the text carried by Birgit Sippel, S&D, editors’ note]. It will be important. And we need to find a policy for returns that actually works. All files are linked.
There must be mandatory and meaningful solidarity for frontline states, but the options must be flexible for contributing Member States. This is the political reality, because we have been in a deadlock since 2016!
On sponsorship, I cannot yet say whether or not this will be feasible in 8 months, but I do hear the concerns of some States. I then tell them that they are welcome to present new options! But they cannot derogate from solidarity. If they do not think sponsorship is a good idea, let them come up with new ideas...
Frontline states need a mechanism that actually works in real life. Otherwise, they will not be open to screening and this will be a huge problem. It is true that we do not currently see enough evidence for fair burden sharing, but to those who say that we should go back to compulsory relocation for all, I say no, we will only create a new dead end. This will not work.
Some people already think that it will take years for the EU Council to reach an agreement...
Parliament will be ready to negotiate as soon as the EU Council is ready, but indeed I would like to see more movement in the Council, because the migration issue will not be easier in one, 2 or 3 years!
Of course, it is complex, but we need a clear decision from the Council of the EU. Consensus would be ideal, but if this is not possible, then a qualified majority must allow this decision. I hope that we will not reach this situation, but if a very large majority of the Member States and Parliament agree, then we will have to take a decision by qualified majority.
It will also be necessary to move forward under the Slovenian Presidency, otherwise we will find ourselves under the French Presidency without any progress, which is worrying. I would like to see this move forward so that we can perhaps conclude at the beginning of the French Presidency. I know that this is too optimistic for some people, but if we don't say it, then it means that nothing will happen during the Slovenian Presidency and then under the French Presidency and the years will pass... We cannot accept that.
We know the different political sensitivities in Parliament on this migration issue, for example on returns and border procedures; do you think that Parliament can keep a united front?
If we do not ensure the return of illegal immigrants, we will not have a functioning migration system. I think everyone in Parliament understands this.
Of course, these are very sensitive political issues, but we all agree in Parliament that a European solution must be found. The problem is the political impasse in the EU Council. We have set up a working group in the European Parliament amongst rapporteurs, and I think everyone understands the urgency of making progress.
We have too many people dying at sea, too many people in camps. And too many problems with citizens frustrated that politicians at European level are not addressing the issue of migration.
The Pact says very little about legal migration, especially economic migration. Is this not a problem?
We need more legal migration to Europe and we should move in that direction, although the best thing is to tackle the root causes of migration by working on investment and job creation.
This is the most important thing to do, because in most cases those who arrive will not be granted asylum in Europe and will remain in the shadows. I can see it in my country, Sweden: we have many people who have had their asylum applications rejected. They still live in Sweden in very difficult conditions.
Sweden has a very liberal system; it is quite easy to come if you show that you have a job with criteria proving that there is no exploitation, but we see people who come, and they don’t get the salary they are told; they end up working for very, very low wages, and a lot of people who can’t go through asylum try to come using this system.
So we need to find a good regulation at European level and get it right.
The subject of conditionality, visas, for third countries is back on the table. Is this the right way to proceed?
I presented a report to the Development Committee in Parliament that focused on aid effectiveness and many proposals were put forward. Migration has been integrated. I know this is a very sensitive issue, but I think we have to work with conditionality.
The first thing to do is, of course, to build a real partnership with countries, especially African countries, to discuss with them what their needs are and how we should partner. And the issue of migration must be addressed.
The issue of visas is one of the tools, because the issue of money is not enough; in some cases third countries are very dependent on aid, in other cases not at all.
We have reached an agreement on a new instrument with the Council, the NDICI (Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument, now called Global Europe, editors’ note), which provides for 10% of the funds to go to migration management. And I think that’s the right way to go.